War is Hell and Dead is Dead


Amanpour Explodes at CNN Syria Panel: Stop Spewing ‘False Moral Equivalence!’

CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour flipped out on the AC360 Later Syria panel Thursday night, calling out the “false moral equivalence” of anti-interventionists. She clashed with blogger Andrew Sullivan over the emotion in the case, shouting down her fellow panelists to get a word in edgewise.

After Anderson Cooper and Sullivan brought up the need to separate the emotion from the policy, Amanpour sighed and said, “I can barely contain myself at this point.” She proceeded to go on a rant about the “false moral equivalence” in arguing against going in.

“How many more times do we have to say that weapons of mass destruction were used, and as bad as it is to decapitate somebody, it is by no means equal. We can’t use this false moral equivalence about what’s going on right now. They tried to do it in the second World War, they tried to do it in Bosnia, they tried to do it in Rwanda, and they’re trying to do it now. There is no moral equivalence.”

When the others tried to jump in, Amanpour shouted, “Wait just a second!” She firmly argued that Obama simply cannot allow Assad to get away with using chemical weapons, noting how Bill Clinton is still apologizing for Rwanda. Sullivan jumped in to say, “This is not reason, this is emotion.” Amanpour fired back, “It’s not emotion. This is history coming out.”

I’m not exactly sure what Ms. Amanpour is referring to when she says “false moral equivalence” but I am far more concerned about the number of dead than the means by which they got that way. When we focus on the chemical weapons it’s like saying that it is okay to kill people with bombs and bullets.

It is not necessary for us to take an inventory of the dead and determined which side is more culpable if there is ample evidence (and there is) that both sides are morally reprehensible. Let us not forget that without our encouragement and support there would be no civil war in Syria in the first place. We have unclean hands in this conflict and we also have ulterior motives.

As far as I am concerned our only appropriate role would be to try to bring about a peaceful resolution of the fighting and/or to prevent the flow of weapons and assistance to both sides. But that’s not what we are doing.

We have no business playing geopolitical chess using other people as pawns.

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Syria and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to War is Hell and Dead is Dead

  1. The Klown says:

    I also have a problem with using the tactic of hiding behind your own women and children. If you use your own people as hostages then you are to blame for their deaths.

  2. Jadzia says:

    Hear, hear. Chemical warfare is incomprehensibly awful, I get that, particularly when a government is waging that kind of war against its own people. But I just do not, do not, do not understand why it is any more wrong to kill 20 civilians with poison gas than it is to kill those same 20 civilians with bombs or a firing squad. Dead is dead.

    I leave you with the best FB exchange I have had in a long time.

    Old High School Buddy (OHSB): “Why is everybody slamming Obama on this Syria thing? The man is brilliant and we just don’t understand his strategy. But he is WAY smarter than the rest of us put together: after all, he got elected president twice.”

    Me: “Uh, so did George W. Bush.”

    OHSB: “Yeah, well, he stole his second election. I am just SO SICK of this spurious Obama bashing!”

    Me: “Well, I’m off to go slam my head against the wall now. Toodles.”

    • driguana says:

      Yes, I am astounded at how all of my prog friends are totally behind Obama and, in fact, praising him. Has the world gone completely nuts? Saddam used chemical weapons to kill Kurds in the 80s. I for one view RPGs as weapons of mass destruction given the number of people they have taken out. This is just complete and utter hypocrisy! And I am once again flabbergasted at the idiocy! As Klown put it, dead is dead!

      • Jadzia says:

        The idiocy, it does burn, but I have the sweet, sweet salve of knowing that THIS is part of the reason I no longer live in the northern town where I went to high school….

  3. DandyTIger says:

    This WMD/Chemical BS is just that, BS. It’s an excuse to go to war. Nothing more. Amanpour might be crazy enough to believe the BS, or she’s just a pusher. Not sure. But dead is dead.

    Chemical weapons and other scary things like that used to be the only WMD’s. They were extra scary because they could kill so many more people than conventional weapons. That was decades ago. It’s no longer true. Everything used in war today is a WMD.

    • DandyTIger says:

      Reminds me of the irrational fear and hatred of nuclear energy. It seems tied to the “bomb”, and that fear drives people to think it’s evil. There are now methods for nuclear energy that are safe (not possible to have meltdowns) and produce no radioactive byproduct. It’s completely irrational and insane not to use inexpensive clean energy like that. Well inexpensive if we didn’t have outdated crazy regulations of that industry.

  4. elliesmom says:

    It’s just a guess, but I don’t think it’s the people who are dead from chemical weapons that are the reason we revile them. Dead is, after all dead. But when people think about chemical weapons, they think about all of the disfigurement they can cause. We don’t shrink away from people who have lost an arm or a leg the way we do when a person has been horribly burned.

    • DandyTIger says:

      Funny how we like to use chemical weapons for capital punishment instead of a firing squad.

      • elliesmom says:

        One of my best friends is a vet. She says it wouldn’t be very hard to develop a weapon delivery method that could deploy a chemical that could “put a battalion to sleep”. No pain. They would just be alive and breathing one minute and dead the next. She says the “drugs” already exist. She uses them legally in her practice to relieve animals from suffering everyday. But what fun would that be?She laughs when she says who would buy a video game that just euthanizes the other guys? She thinks people (men in particular) wouldn’t like a war where there’s no blood and guts.

        • wmcb says:

          I think war should have bood and guts. It’s one reason why drone warfare is so horrifying to me. War that is clean and clinical and removed is the most horrifying kind of war there is, becuse it’s too easy to deny the reality of what you are doing.

          The sights, sounds, smells, and shock of war is a good thing. For centuries it’s what made humankind at least somewhat cautious about engaging in it. If there is going to be war, make it bloody and horrible and soul-wrenching and in your face, so that we remember what it is.

        • elliesmom says:

          But that’s actually my friend’s point. You, and she, and I are horrified by war no matter how it’s fought. But it’s the blood and guts aspect of it that makes it attractive to a lot of people. She cites the proliferation of more and more violent video war games as a symptom. There’s “no fun” in it unless you get shoot people up and watch their guts spill out all over the screen.

  5. The Klown says:
  6. piper says:

    Vietnam – approx. 3.5 million served – most drafted (limited choices – serve, go to jail, run away to other countries or have daddy buy your way out), – 58,000 died in battle but how many have died afterwards due to exposure to Agent Orange, that wonderful dioxin produced by Monsanto which was sprayed in there. Personal experience so yes, dead is dead.

  7. The Klown says:
    • wmcb says:

      The poll question, and the entire WaPo piece, is utterly deceptive anyway. Newsflash: You cannot “hit” chemical weapons. Someone, i.e. troops of some sort, i.e. “boots on the ground”, HAS to go in and find and secure them. Period. Full stop. So, who is going to do it? There is no point debating response to chemical weapons without facing that incontrovertible fact.

      If they say that air strikes are some sort of constructive means of “doing something” about getting rid of chemical weapons, they are LYING. Punishment or vengeance for using them? Yeah, possibly. But air strikes do bupkus to get rid of them.

  8. fif says:

    I didn’t see Amanpour “explode.” She was impassioned, but as usual they exaggerate when a woman dares to speak up. She also wasn’t that articulate when she did seize attention. As you point out, there is a fundamental lack of honesty about the whole conversation. We hold the “moral high ground.” Really? According to the mainstream PR campaign we do, but if the truth came out about what we’ve done for decades there would be true “moral equivalence.” That isn’t to excuse chemical weapons but there is a false argument on view. It’s all about agendas.

    • The Klown says:

      I don’t claim to be an expert about Syria but I recognize bullshit when I see it. There is a lot of mierda de toro getting spread from both sides.

      • wmcb says:

        Yep. 1) What is the problem? 2) What, if anything, can effectively be done about it? 3) Who is going to do it? 4) What will the likely repurcussions be of doing it?

        No one wants to calmly and systematically address those four basic questions.

        • The Klown says:

          I believe that at some point in the not-too-distant future the western democracies are going to have to have a knock-down drag-out fight with radical Islam. That war will probably involve Iran. Hopefully Russia and China will either stay out of it or will join our side.

          But this is not the time or the place and Obama is not the commander-in-chief we need to lead the country through a war.

        • wmcb says:

          I agree also. I think our choices are going to be either utterly ignore them or total war to cripple them for the next century.

          Myself, I’d like to start with ignore for some number of years, not giving them the pretext of our meddling to attack us. Then, when they continue to attack (and I think they will), rain destruction on them.

        • wmcb says:

          I also think that WHILE we are doing the ignoring part, we need to make sure we build, maintain and train the most kick-ass military on the planet. So that when the reckoning comes, we are ready.

          Leave them alone for a time, and keep whittling your big stick. Give them enough rope to hang themselves, then bring hell upon them.

  9. votermom says:

    Oh please Mr Bad Guy, go ahead and chop off my head, just don’t use those evil chemicals on me!

  10. The Klown says:
  11. The Klown says:
  12. The Klown says:
  13. The Klown says:
  14. wmcb says:

  15. driguana says:

    I can’t believe that I ever used to watch Amanpour ever! Just listening to her voice makes me want to run away screaming. I swear these prog media people have become really, really hard to take. Not sure if it is because they believe in the lies they perpetuate, their lack of real, innate intelligence or their pompous, self-righteous attitudes. Isn’t she Iranian? Iranian wealth, too?

  16. driguana says:

    James nailed it….

  17. helenk3 says:


    wonder if they had to make the choice of molestation or radiation while he smuggled them in?

Comments are closed.