When did things like moral authority and/or hypocrisy.........

[Proud Liberal Dem]

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:57 PM - Edit history (2)

become the SOLE determinant of our current and future foreign policy? Throughout the debate on Syria, I am constantly hearing people question what kind of moral authority we have at present to intervene and whether or not we are hypocritical for potentially intervening in Syria when we didn't intervene in other places or under other circumstances. I'm not saying that I'm a huge booster for war or that I believe that military intervention is always justified and/or wise (though to be honest, I'm not the one sitting in the hot seat having to make those kind of decisions) nor do I believe that our country's hands are clean in terms of how we've conducted foreign policy in the past but it seems to me that if we let all of our country's past misdeeds and/or actions/inaction dictate our foreign policy now and forever, then when would it EVER be appropriate again to intervene anywhere (outside of legitimate self-defense)?

[Romulox]

1. Without moral authority, all that remains is "Might makes right".

The argument eats itself; if "might makes right" is the only guiding principle, then where is there room to criticize Assad?

[LibAsHell]

2. How are they the sole determinant in this case?

If it makes you more comfortable, you can sideline the moral authority and hypocrisy arguments, and just look what's left:

Assad probably used chemical weapons.

Is that enough to justify bombing an already war-ravaged country, when the explicitly stated purpose is simply to allow the opposition to gain the upper hand, despite the fact that we have no way of knowing whether it will actually achieve that goal, or what will happen afterwards, and that the only guarantee we have from military intervention is civilian casualties and spending a ton of money?

Ignore the moral authority and hypocrisy arguments and we STILL don't have a compelling reason for military intervention. Period.

[leftstreet]

3. +1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. They seem to be the sole (or at least primary) determining factors for a lot of people (re: Syria)

n/t