A few questions about Syria

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

The government of the United States, the one elected to that office by a majority of the electorate, used weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, poisons, against it “own people” in Waco, Texas. It murdered dozens of helpless, defenseless women and children. And innocent men too.

There is at the time of this writing not a scintilla of evidence that a similar act was perpetrated by the government of Syria. The claim that this is true might well be a false flag operation. After all, Bashar had very little to gain by using such despicable weapons. His revolutionary opposition did and does. Nevertheless, let us stipulate that this is indeed true.  The Bashar government is guilty of these heinous crimes. Chemical weapons. We assume this arguendo.

How would the average American feel if the government of Syria (or China, or Russia, or Monaco, or Lichtenstein or Uruguay or Australia or Nigeria) drew a red line in the sand against such U.S. barbarism, and said that a penalty must be imposed somewhere between the Rio Grande and the Canadian border by use of tomahawk missiles. It would only be a limited surgical strike. Syria (or China, or Russia, or Monaco, or Lichtenstein or Uruguay or Australia or Nigeria) did not seek “regime change” in the U.S. Oh, no, that would not be warranted. It would only be justified to rain down a few, or a few dozen, or a few hundred, missiles in carefully selected areas in Texas, or perhaps near Washington D.C. and who knows where else. What would our opinion be if Syria (or China, or Russia, or Monaco, or Lichtenstein or Uruguay or Australia or Nigeria) now had warships off the coast of California, Louisiana and Maryland. How would we take it if the congress of Syria (or China, or Russia, or Monaco, or Lichtenstein or Uruguay or Australia or Nigeria) were now debating whether they should launch these missiles against us? What would be our reaction if the president of Syria (or China, or Russia, or Monaco, or Lichtenstein or Uruguay or Australia or Nigeria) bruited it about that he might, or he might not, launch these missiles against us whether or not the decision of the duly elected congress of that country supported such a course of action? How might we view all these questions if we were now in the throes of a civil war of our own, which had already killed millions of people? Let us suppose, while we’re busy supposing, that our civil war pitted people west of the Mississippi against those east of this river, and that the government of Syria (or China, or Russia, or Monaco, or Lichtenstein or Uruguay or Australia or Nigeria) was going to sprinkle most but not all of its bombs in one or the other of these areas?  What might our thoughts be regarding the equivalents of Barak Obama, John McCain, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi in Syria (or China, or Russia, or Monaco, or Lichtenstein or Uruguay or Australia or Nigeria).

Ron Paul was roundly booed and hissed at during the South Carolina round of the Republican nomination process for the election of 2012 for daring to suggest we should walk in the other guy’s moccasins for a bit. In chess, you are supposed to say to yourself, if I do this, what will the other guy do. Putting ourselves into the minds of others is a sign of civility. Asking how we would act were the shoe on the other foot is the earmark of being an adult. It is too bad that this sort of thing seems to be beyond the capabilities of some sociopaths. It is even worse that many of them are in positions of power.

 

3:19 pm on September 7, 2013
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts