OK, There's another title of this article I wanted to use - One that was used in the Hippie era. It started "Bombing for peace is like..." However, it would be quite inappropriate for me to finish that quote. There are, however many search engines on the internet if you do not know the quote. Let me warn you, the original quote contains foul language...VERY foul language. Don't say I didn't warn you!
Let me begin by saying that I absolutely condemn the use of chemical weapons. I don't care who uses them. There is no excuse to poison anyone! There is no excuse to deliver a weapon that kills people by poisoning the very air they breathe. There is no excuse to cause people to die from causing their own body to destroy itself.
However, the use of chemical weapons does not validate the use of conventional weapons either. Both are equally damaging. Many of us have at least seen news footage of scenes from inside hospitals where those wounded by conventional weapons suffer and eventually die. Many of the wounded who do not die are afflicted with life altering disabilities for the rest of their lives. These weapons do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. The same can be said about chemical weapons.
Why members of the US Government think that an attack against Syria will solve this problem, I can't answer. But, this I can answer. It won't solve the problem! It will only create more problems.
Maybe an attack will stop the further use of chemical weapons, but it will not stop the killing of civilians in conventional weapon attacks. In fact, I would be willing to bet that any attack from the US Military will include civilian casualties - the very "noble" thing our government says we are fighting. Of course, the government will call those injuries and deaths "collateral damage." Why? Because it sounds better! 20 dead civilians sounds barbaric. Some collateral damage doesn't sound bad at all.
We need to tune our ears into the vocabulary of war. Collateral Damage = People.
Senator John McCain and President Barack Obama are hellbent on heavy strikes against Syria and then giving assistance to the rebels. In essence, they are FOR the continuation of this war. They are FOR more civilian deaths. Also, given the fact that we are dealing with an Authoritarian regime, and that no one knows the scope of the rebel regimes (yes, I said regimes - there are MANY - some estimate dozens while others estimate thousands), we don't know if the combatants are there by their will or by force. Maybe the combatants are as innocent as the civilians. In fact, I would go as far to say that all soldiers - even those who enter any conflict willingly are innocent - at least to a point when taking another life becomes "just another day's work."
So, who are we helping? Who are we hurting? What are we perpetuating? This war will not end soon. Even with our limited strikes, this war will not end soon. There is a very good chance that if the rebel groups win, they will then fight amongst themselves for power, thus creating more chaos and destruction.
America needs to pay attention. Just a few weeks ago, we had no money. Our economy was in the tank. We were going bankrupt and on the verge of a zombie apocalypse. Now, we have millions to spend on "targeted strikes" and providing aid to rebels we do not know? Of course, I hate to take an isolationist view or a "me first" view of the world. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of our government actions. We will leave millions homeless so that others can kill across the world? Our own veterans have to fight for their basic rights to get a job and healthcare? Our educational system is destroyed because some legislators believe that only a few elite should be completely educated while we placate the rest by a minimal education? But we can afford someone else's war?
If America really cares, why not take this course of action? We have military ships in the area. Why not send in Red Cross and other willing humanitarian sources. Why not get the wounded civilians and bring them to a port and put them on these military ships? Then we can give them the medical care they need. Why not go to the refugee camps and instead of letting these people live in squalor, let's feed them a balanced diet. Let's give them real shelter instead of just make-shift tents. Let's provide actual security at the refugee camps. While all this is going on, let's send our diplomats and Secretary of State and President to actually talk to the warring factions of Syria. Let's see if we can get them to talk. Of course this will be a long and arduous process, but so will watching them kill each other.
People will say my plan is not viable and it is too expensive. I'm not an economist, and I'm not a military expert, but I would be willing to "bet the farm" that my plan is much cheaper than sending missiles into Syria. It will cost less lives, and it will boost America's global image. Most importantly, it will affirm the sanctity of human life!
No comments:
Post a Comment