Thursday, September 5, 2013

Why Is a Short-Term Agonizing Death More Heinous Than a Long-Term One?

Trey Smith

On a recent episode of The Young Turks, comedian Jimmy Dore made what I think is a great point. 

US leaders are all up in a tizzy because they allege that President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people in Syria. President Obama has termed this usage as crossing a "red line." Secretary of State John Kerry has stated repeatedly that the vast majority of the world has decided that the use of chemical weapons is not acceptable. Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

But what about depleted uranium?

In a manner of speaking, depleted uranium could be considered a chemical weapon as well. It is the chemical properties of this vile substance that often leads to long-term health issues and agonizing deaths. The chief difference between a poisonous gas versus depleted uranium is that the former tends to kill more quickly, while the latter can take years or, sometimes, decades.

Of course, there IS another important difference: The US regularly uses depleted uranium on the battlefield. Since whatever the US does is right and just, no one can criticize us for utilizing a weapon that leads to agonizing deaths.

Dore's point is that we are in no position to be the final arbiter on this issue. IF the Syrian government is guilty of this crime against humanity, then we are guilty 100 times over! If the Syrian government is guilty of killing hundreds of people with gas, then we are even more guilty of compromising the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as tens of thousands of our own troops!

If people believe that it is okay to bomb Syria for their crime, would you feel the same way if another nation decided to punish the US for our crimes against humanity?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.