The false logic behind non-intervention in Syria's use of chemical weapons.

I've been reading many outlets suggesting that, rather than intervene in Syria as a result of Bashar al Assad's use of chemical weapons, the US should alternatively spend money on finding a malaria vaccine.  I've also read that the US is being hypocritical for pushing to intervene in Syria while it stood by during the Iran-Iraq War of the 80s, or that it was complicit (and therefore has no moral standing) in the usage of chemical weapons during that war.  But it doesn't make sense.

Firstly, if only finding a malaria vaccine were just a matter of more money, then we should have already found a vaccine.  In this case, it feels more like a fundraiser telling you that they're close to their goal, but just need your money to make it happen...and then next year you get that same phone call explaining how close they are to their goal.  Look at HIV.  Annually the US spends tens of billions in support and research for HIV / AIDS, and while we're inching closer to a full understanding and a vaccine, there is no timetable or dollar amount that will get us to the goal posts.

Secondly, what one did or didn't do 30 years ago, has little bearing on the moral standing of the current generation or the current nation's identity.  Further, what you do NOW is more important that dwelling on what you did or didn't do, before.  History is there to teach us what to do in the future, not to admonish us about our past sins for forever.

Thirdly, if we were complicit in Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians in the 80s because we looked the other way, then we'd be no less complicit today, by looking the other way as Syrians die from chemical weapon attacks.

Fourthly -- and this is where history informs us about what we should do -- we know now from the Iran-Iraq War, that if you stand by and do nothing, it will be taken as a green light to do anything.  I think China is learning this lesson as well, with North Korea.

Now separately, I've previously written about the complications of intervention.  It still holds true that if you give one side an advantage, all you're really doing is enabling on extreme group to win over the other.  With Hezbollah on one side and Al Qaeda on the other, this is not necessarily a war that one wants to dictate an outcome, nor should we.  But the use of chemical weapons is insidious and a strong signal must be sent to all countries throughout the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.  And ultimately there needs to be a solution of safe-keeping for those who have no alliance to either extreme group.

The ultimatum you give is this: Give up your chemical weapons immediately, or we will destroy them for you, immediately; if you retaliate, we will find and chop off the head of the tiger for you and split off a portion of your country to form a protected, safe-haven for all refugees, which will be turned into its own sovereign nation.