Big RR wrote:rubato--if we have always acted morally in the past, I might agree with you, but we are hardly are moral beacon. Hell, we practically patted Saddam on the back for the same thing years ago (not to mention having supplied him with the chemicals to make the poison), but then he was the enemy of our enemy (Iran) while Assad is its friend--and the end justifies the means. Not to mention that we have supported and helped dictatorial regimes in the past who have done far worse because it was in our interest. Acting in our own self interest is not always moral, and it erodes any argument that we are acting morally now. Indeed, I don't think there is any country which can defensibly that it is acting out of some moral sense of outrage.
That is why I think only a concerted international response can work; our interests are not always aligned with other countries (even our friends), which is why a coalition would act in a situation like this only if there is a moral imperative, and not some self interest masquerading as such.
Either that, or admit we are acting in our own self interest and present the case to the American public as to why a strike is needed to advance that interest. There may well be defensible interests here (I don't see them, but they may exist), but let's not delude ourselves to say we are acting as a defender of morality.
So your "theory" is that we cannot do the right thing unless we have always done the right thing in the past and only if everyone else goes along with us.
Not a functional theory in the real world.
yrs,
rubato
