Aug 302013
 

I’ll preface this by saying that that plenty of other blogs can provide much more intelligent commentary on the events unfolding in regards to Syria. But what exactly would we accomplish with military intervention? I understand that chemical weapons are horrible, but is it any more acceptable for civilians to be slaughtered with bullets and mortars? This distinction between conventional and nonconventional arms may have made sense fifty years ago, but it seems archaic when modern conventional weapons are perfectly capable of killing thousands in seconds. If we only sit up and take notice of civilian deaths when chemical weapons are used, we’re hardly the defenders of justice that we claim to be as a nation. We’re like cynical cops who only venture into a bad neighborhood after someone sprays gunfire into a playground.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)