The use of chemical weapons by a country makes the world angry. It has been portrayed in television shows, like the show ‘Newsroom,’ as Operation Genoa arose, which was inspired by CNN’s retracted coverage of Operation Tailwind which stated that the United States used nerve gas in order to kill American “defectors,” it generated many angry viewers and, most importantly, many unsatisfied allies. The emotions demonstrated on the show were a true reflection of the reality that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own citizens. But, what makes chemical weapons worse than any other weapons?
If a person is killed with any regular weapon or a chemical weapon, it doesn’t really matter how they died because they are dead anyway and their government is at fault. Yet the United States only intervenes if there was a usage of chemical weapons. Betcy Jose argues exactly this. While Jose agrees that chemical weapons should continue to be banned, she also thinks that there should humanitarian intervention because people are dying, and not because of the use of certain weapons. Assad has not been complying and has even killed innocent civilians like health workers.
Jose uses the example of President Trump condemning Syria for crossing many lines because of their use of chemical weapons and criticizes the President because he did not think that a photo of a “bloodied and dazed” child who had just been victim of a missile strike did not cross the line. Furthermore, Jose chastised the United States and its allies for not providing the ever-so promised safe haven for those who survived. She also believes that the fear of chemical weapons usage is not for the civilians but for the United States troops and it is a way to shield soldiers rather than innocent men and women.
I agree that there should be more attention paid to killings around the world, rather than just those done by chemical weapons. However, I think the first sentence of the second paragraph is a bit harsh. Chemical weapons create so much suffering while the person/people are dying and cause lasting issues for an area, while guns and other common weapons do not cause the latter. Additionally, chemical weapons generally are not used or at least not spoken of compared to other weapons. Thus, creating much more of a shock than other weapons, which aids in explaining Trump’s greater reaction to the use chemical weapons than the photo of the missile strike. Despite this, I believe that children and other innocents should not be subject to these weapons in any case.
ReplyDeleteWell I agree that we should care about how the people are dying regardless if it was because of a chemical weapon or a normal weapon, I think you down played the effect chemical weapons have and why they are payed greater attention to then say the missiles you mentioned. While both are important, like Caitlin pointed out chemical weapons are less common to see and it has a greater impact in the area which could affect others instead of only those that were killed. I agree that we should pay greater attention to deaths in general instead of just those by chemical weapons since both ways the people get hurt and die but it might be harder to intervene then if it’s by normal weapons for the unites states, the un, etc
ReplyDeleteI agree that the world should focus more on the dangers of chemical weapons, as well as the reasonless killings going on around the world. I agree the United States should intervene in Syria when there is any killing occurring, not just with the use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons should not be the only reason the United States should intervene in a country regarding civilian killings. I found it very interesting how you talked about the missile strikes, because I also do not feel these are right because civilian lives are being taken.
ReplyDelete