The petition reads:
"President Obama: With civilians being butchered and refugees suffering immensely, it is horrifying to watch the brutal civil war in Syria unfold. But U.S. military intervention is far more likely to make matters worse, not better. The U.S. should not bomb Syria. The best thing we can do is commit to holding war criminals accountable, expand humanitarian aid for refugees, and maintain constant diplomatic pressure for a negotiated end to the conflict."Sign the petition here.
The administration sees the use of chemical weapons in Syria as a threat to our national security. Certainly, the Syrian people suffer, but I don't understand the threat to the United States. What good purpose would be served by sending missiles that inflict more suffering and death on people who are already suffering and dying?
Instead of sending in missiles that kill and cause more misery, why not spend the money to help refugees, over 1 million of whom are children, many alone without their parents? Help the Syrians who fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt who are in desperate need. The last thing Syria needs is more violence.
Donate to UNICEF here.
I couldn't agree more, Mimi. So far Canada is holding back, but I have a bad feeling about this...
ReplyDeleteAnd what is the rush? Is there intelligence about another imminent chemical attack?
DeleteI'll probably sign that petition, but I need to vent some stuff first---
ReplyDeleteThe comparisons are made to Iraq (2003). But w/ Iraq---
* We knew that Dubya's feelings towards Saddam were personal.
* We knew the Neo-Cons had been gunning for Iraq for YEARS.
* We knew the Republican Permanent Profit Regime was after the oil.
* We knew Dubya(Cheney!)&Co were deliberately playing on (completely unrelated) Post-9/11 "The A-rabs/Moslems Are Out to Git Us!" hysteria.
* We were pretty sure the supposed "WMD" was a PRE-text.
* We knew that, while Saddam was murderous, he wasn't murderous in any NEW way since Gulf War 1 (So Why Now?)
All of these factors made me UNAMBIVALENTLY AGAINST going to War On Iraq.
Many, if not most, of these factors are missing here. I just can't see an equivalency.
Instead, I get more of a "Rwanda 1994" feeling: seeing the slaughter, and wondering WHAT can we do?
JCF, I didn't say it was the equivalent of Iraq. True, Assad is a despot, but there is a civil war going on. What good will come of us getting in the middle and sending missiles that will kill and maim Syrian people who are already suffering so much?
Delete"WHAT can we do?" Send humanitarian aid to the refugees.
As many people have commented, the problem in Syria is that although the Assad regime is undoubtedly very bad, the rebels are no better. As Justin Trudeau said yesterday, as soon as we talk military action there are hundreds of questions, such as, 'Who would we help?' and 'What would victory look like?'
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, there's the spectacle, once again, of white westerners going roaring into the Middle East claiming to be able to tell people there how they should run their lives, and backing it up with the deadliest military firepower in history. I think the Middle East, as a region, is sick and tired of the Western belief that we are the world's policeman and we have the right to go in and bomb any time we get outraged enough (didn't Roosevelt call a bombing without a declaration of war a 'Day of infamy'?). Colonialism is alive and well.
Yes, the "problem" of the Middle East. After so many failures, why do we think we have the solution to the turmoil in the ME? Yesterday, 80 people were killed in a bomb attack in Iraq. That's how we fixed Iraq. If there was no oil...
Delete