Is Obama’s “decision” right?

Ayesha Abbasi, Social Media Editor/Columnist

On Sept. 10, 2013 the long awaited address on Syria was made by President Obama in which he stated that  “I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force” so my question is why are we trying to?
What has given us as Americans the right to intervene in someone else’s civil war?
Since when has America really been against chemical weapons?

As Obama stated in his speech “When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. ”

But how come during 1983-88, Saddam used over 100,000 chemical munitions against Iran and its own Kurdish population, killing nearly 25,000 people America completely turned their heads in order to ignore the human rights abuses. Why are the facts denied there?
I can understand that Asssad clearly crossed the “red-line” with the use of chemical weapons ,but how come we saw no moral obligation to intervene for two years while 100,000 Syrians were slaughtered?

How come we sprayed nearly 20 million gallons of Agent Orange as a part of chemical warfare over Vietnam from 1961-72?
How come we bombed Iraqis with depleted uranium in 2004 and received no punishment?
How come we used white phosphorous in Afghanistan as recently as 2009?

Bashar al-Assad committed a moral obscenity; no doubt about that. We should not do nothing; no doubt about that either. But the argument on moral grounds for bombing — and potentially worsening the lives of millions of innocent Syrians are all “facts that cannot be denied”. I don’t think Obama committed himself to any one course of action. But if he does bomb them, we’re involved in that war, and I sure hope his advisers have thought through all the potential consequences better than you have.