The moral nation claim

[cali]

is a hollow one. It's part and parcel of our national mythology. I wish politicians and particularly presidents would stop employing it to further military interventions.

In President Obama's address last night the moral imperative argument stood out.

<snip>

The core of the Obama argument was — as it has been for days now — a moral appeal. “When dictators commit atrocities, they depend on the world to look the other way,” Obama said at one point. But, it wasn’t just an appeal to our common morality. It was that if an act — gassing your own people — is condemned but tolerated by America, then the chances of other rogue actors pressing the bounds of acceptable behavior in the future increases. What Obama seemed to be saying is that this isn’t about Syria — it’s about the next Syria and the one after that.

Obama made a very carefully argued case for how America should think of its place in the world in the 21st century. He said twice that America was “not the world’s policeman” but that in a case like Syria — where the United States could send a moral message around the globe with small risks – we should do so. That’s a complex calculation that has a level of subjectivity built into it — what small risks, large rewards actually are often lies in the eye of the man or woman making the decision.
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/10/4-takeaways-from-president-obamas-syria-speech/

Even if we were a shining beacon of international morality- something we clearly are not- this is a not only a poor argument for launching a war, it's a dangerous one.

[jsr]

1. God bless the United States of America.

[KG]

2. America! fuck yeah!

[ProSense]

3. "Franklin Roosevelt once said...

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.” Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023642111

President Obama: "However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023642225

[cali]

5. do you think the U.S. is a "moral nation"? Do you think that

the claim that we're a moral nation is a good argument for war?

As usual, your response is nothing but a defense of President Obama.

[ProSense]

9. I find this question

"do you think the U.S. is a 'moral nation'?"

...short-sighted and disingenuous. I mean, Americans come in all stripes: some support aiding the poor, here and around the world, and some don't. I've seen people cite polls that Americans want to cut foreign aid, and those same polls show a lack of support, albeit not at the same level, for providing aid to the poor in this country.

You can make the argument that this country is not a "moral nation," but are you willing to accept that argument being used to ignore helping the most vulnerable people? Are you willing to make that argument to say this country should turn a blind eye to atrocities wherever they occur?

Leadership matters. Does it matter who is in the WH? Would the country be better off had Bush not ascended to the Presidency?

Will the country be better off if Elizabeth Warren is elected? Would her election make this country a "moral nation"?

It may not be possible to address every atrocity, but striving to do the right thing is not a flaw.

I find the arguments that this is not our problem and from the RW ("let Allah sort it out&quot to be callous.

"Do you think that the claim that we're a moral nation is a good argument for war?"

He is making the case for destroying Syria capacity to launch a chemical attack. There is still a chance that these strikes will not happen.

President Obama: "However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023642225

"As usual, your response is nothing but a defense of President Obama."

Maybe you should strive to leave personal comments out of your arguments.

[cali]

12. this isn't about individual Americans.

That is another discussion and wholly irrelevant to this one.

In fact, whether this country is or is not a moral nation, isn't the main gist of my op. Nor does not intervening militarily mean turning a blind eye to atrocities.

This has nothing to do with Warren or Bush and it's only tangentially about President Obama. EVERY president uses this argument about the U.S. being a moral nation.

Comparing my op to the comment "let Allah sort it out" which you know very well is a comment I've expressed my loathing for is a despicable personal comment- far more than my remark that your comments on DU are almost wholly defenses of President Obama. Would you actually deny that????

Here's a personal remark for you: The op seemed to go right over your head.

[ProSense]

14. Neither was my point, which "seemed to go right over your head." n/t

[cali]

19. you certainly do like to parrot what I say

feeble, propro.

[bobduca]

13. pointing out reality is not a "personal attack"

Don't get touchy if posters accidentally post your organization's mission statement.

[bhikkhu]

17. Morality is a decision, which requires an intention

and I would like to think that we have that intention, as we should. I am fairly certain that the president does.

The GOP alternative is what I hear most often - "they're just like animals over there, why should we get involved if they're all killing each other?"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Cross out Syria and write in Iraq.

Why vote for change if nothing changes?

[cali]

6. I can tell you precisely why.

I don't accept your claim that "nothing changes".

1) The Supreme Court

2) social issues

3) the social safety net

4) to a lesser degree but still real, foreign affairs. Do you believe that a republican president would have gone to Congress over Syria?

there's more, but even if there wasn't, that would be enough for me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. OK, I readily grant those points; but DAMN this war thing is so heartbreaking.

[malaise]

7. Huh? The what???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023644055

[cali]

10. what the hell does Weiner have to do with this?????

[Autumn]

11. Seems to be a problem with links cali

[KittyWampus]

15. what the fuck ever. Every day, the same group of DU'ers try to sound informed

and end up missing the whole elephant while they proclaim the one piece they're holding is the whole animal.

We don't have to be an unblemished beacon of morality to do something useful to stop an ugly situation from getting worse.

[Agschmid]

16. Yup.

[cali]

18. well that's silly, kitty. let me point out why, kitty.

1) I'm not trying to sound informed. 2) I'm not proclaiming that "the one piece they're holding is the whole animal."

3) I'm not claiming that "We have to be an unblemished beacon of morality to do something useful to stop an ugly situation from getting worse."

I'm simply stating my belief that the "moral nation" argument for war is a poor one.