In regard to point 1 I agree with Thucy completely. If no stand is taken now against chemical weapons then there will be no such action against chemical weapons use in future and they will inevitably spread. It will also make it harder to get similar international rules set up against the use of other weapons (landmines etc) as it will be seen as completely pointless.

I also share Thucy's frustration that the international community does not treat massive human rights with the same robustness as it (at least used to) treated chemical weapons.

As far as point 3 goes, I honestly see no problem at all with nations such as the US treating its own citizens as its priority.

It's not the United States that's preventing international action against Assad's use of chemical weapons. It's Russia. Keep that in mind, everyone.

Very good point to make.

White mans burden (formerly known as Thucydides)

So you think that nothing can go wrong in a bombing campaign where the regime has explicitly said they would respond to such an attack by trying to make the war a regional one. How stupid are you.

Thucy - you shouldn't assume that just because people see different solutions to the problem that they don't care about other humans.

A self-righteous person acts superior to his peers because he believes his moral standards are perfect. This "moral smugness" is condescending by nature and is usually found offensive by others.

Urban Dictionary

Great source ^

Bottom line from an Obama supporter

Obama completely screwed the pooch on this one.

The idea of western and unilateral action shoul NEVER have been broached.

The US should have done a full press in the security council and forced Russia to veto action after action. It would have been a black mark on Russia and china, created goodwill with the Arab world and hopefully, as international pressure ramped up, hopefully disengaged Russia and isolated Assad.

Instead AGAIN somehow he had forced the us, who has nothing to do with this conflict and nothing at stake, to chose between two equally awful courses of action. It is shameful and indicative of the clueless nature of us statecraft in the last 20 years.

And, somehow, the us stands to take the blame AGAIN on a humanitarian disastrous caused by a ruthless dictator and Russian and Chinese support for that dictator

The US will take the blame from whom, idiots living in delusion with irrational and illogical reasoning? Syrian society is self-destructing because of the complete collapse of Syrian culture with its tribalism and inability to deal with the modern, secular world.

Arab mentality is just simply not prepared for democracy, that's what the west needs to learn.

The Syiran opposition isn't struggling against Assad to establish democracy. The Syrian opposition simply wants to overthrow Assad so they can control Syria in an even more ruthless Muslim fundamentalist state than the Assad regime.

Now i might be all wrong about this, but i don't get the impression the China's veto was related to them supporting Assad... Let's see, more like a pro-China message tham a pro-Assad on (at least according to this analysis: www.opendemocracy.net/nicholas-wong/china’s-veto-on-syria-what-interests-are-at-play )

Russia has a pretty big interest in keeping Assad around, China is more interested in whatever is good for China. And looks like it is taking a pretty consistant moral position.

And how is it that Cameron comes out of this smelling like roses, while Obama 'screwed the pouch'??

@Emac... Lol... what gave you all of those ideas? The Egyptian opposition wanted to establish "democracy" too. I can't believe I was dumb enough to fall for that once. How can you fall for it twice?

And really, why are Syrians now idiots for living in the Arab world? They aren't the USA. They'll never be the USA. They don't want to be like the USA, and I assure you that the USA won't do anything to make them want to be like the USA.

@ora ... China's veto was because they don't want the US to have any more influence in the world.

Cameron is a prick. Harper is a prick. Obama is a prick. Hollande is a prick. Though Hollande is the least pricky of the pricks. How's that?

What the fuck are you posting about your first paragraph? I posted that the opposition "ISN'T" struggling to establish democracy. Are you drunk right now? What the fuck are you talking about in your second paragraph? It's just simply incoherent and has nothing to do with anything I've posted. Have another drink and go to bed. Maybe you will make some sense tomorrow.

I am not accusing you guys necessarily of valuing some people's lives over others, however of course since the view is so prevalent I'm confident some people on this forum hold non-egalitarian views.

However in the general population it's simply a tragic fact that they don't give a shit about foreigners, and I am tired of smiling quietly when I hear other Americans saying things like: "let them fight their own war."

I am not trying to say my moral system is perfect - to claim that would be the height of if ignorance. I am however prepared to stand by the essence - that no one, not your own self, your family or your countrymen, counts more than anyone else because we are all equally human.

That is a principle I take as the starting point for ethics. Ethics that does not hold the same principle as a non-negotiable tenet is not worthy of being called ethics.

I challenge you to disagree. Anything else is only veiled selfishness, which I suppose certain Randians are prepared to defend.