Strikes me as interesting
Brief note. Strikes me as interesting
to see our presidents stand by the statue of Psychotic Madman Lincoln, claiming to follow Lincoln's genocidal model. (Of course they don't call it a genocidal model; they use other words.) Then a few days after the presidents declare undying love for Nation-Burner Lincoln, they decide to bomb some other country where the leader is also
following the genocidal model of Lincoln.
In this particular case the analogy is perfect except for a difference in technology. Madman Lincoln, attempting to bring a separatist area back into his Empire to maximize profits of the Railroad Trust, burned entire cities to kill masses of civilians. Assad, attempting to put down a violent rebellion, uses 1918 gas technology to kill masses of civilians. You could argue that Assad is more justified in using violence because his rebels started a war
to overthrow Assad, while Madman Lincoln's rebels were merely trying to secede. Still pretty much the same thing in the end.
Well then, why is Madman Assad's mass murder of civilians HORRIBLE and MORALLY REPUGNANT and REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ROBUST RESPONSE, while Madman Lincoln's mass murder of civilians was EMANCIPATION and LIBERTY and GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE AMEN?
Hmm. Damned if I know. It's beyond me.