syria

[Ed]

Here is a discussion I had with some friends on facebook about the situation in Syria:

https://www.facebook.com/criticaldarl...

Its a sticky situation, but basically I think if someone has the ability to stop someone else from committing crimes against humanity, then that someone should do that. I think America has the ability to stop the crimes against humanity that are going on in Syria. And I think we should stop it. If we can stop it in a non-violent way, then great. If we can stop it without causing greater suffering, then great. If not, then we have to figure out a way to do it without causing greater suffering.

[Terri]

It is a hard call. I just am not sure limited airstrikes would do it. It might in fact, make things worse if Bashar or insurgents use it as an excuse to create even more atrocities.

[Christina]

I didn't read through the whole discussion; it was really long.

I'm torn. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. As far as I am concerned, the UN is obsolete. They make all these rules, restrictions, regulations, what have you and then they don't do anything when they are violated. It is a pointless organization, so I am not putting any trust in anything they have to say, or their opinion.

I am worried that if we don't act on these behaviors immediately, there will come a time when we simply cannot. The best time would be now.

Unless we are overwhelmed, which we are. I am from a military family and am married to a Marine. I am not speaking for my husband, only myself. I am tired. I don't want my husband to deploy again. And I certainly don't want him to go to Syria. And even though they are not talking boots on the ground, when your spouse is the one who would be going if it came to that, any action causes anxiety.

I did not vote for Obama, but I do think he is right. And even though I would get through it if my husband had to go at some point, I just want a break. For me. For my friends. For my neighbors. And for my country.

[Terri]

I certainly can understand that Christina and I know you are not alone on the fatigue.

[Ed]

I couldn't see the US putting troops in Syria. Obama has taken on this behavior of relying on drones quite a bit. What I honestly would like to see is for Obama to use the ICCT International Criminal Courts Treaty and issue a warrant for whomever they feel is responsible for the chemical weapons attacks. If it is Asaad then the international community has to ask him to turn himself in. This is where the UN comes in. If he refuses, then we no longer recognize him as the leader of Syria. Meanwhile we plot to nab him, whenever the opportunity arises. He will be heavily guarded obviously, so it would be a HUGE undertaking. And it may take quite awhile. The flip side of that is to set up refuge camps for Syrians - in law abiding nations that border Syria and allow the civil war to play out its course. At some point Asaad will be vulnerable and the international community can nab him. But it all starts with the ICCT. Putting out a warrant for his arrest.

[Christina]

You mean the U.S., right? No one else will do it. And I think it is on purpose. Everyone knows the U.S. will step up and then even though the other countries will secretly be glad the U.S. got him, they will publicly criticize us. The hypocrisy on this planet is astounding. So I say screw the U.N. Obama should decide what he is going to do, do it, and then thank no one but the U.S. when the deed is done.

[Terri]

That's an interesting idea Ed. Unless there is a famous trial, I tend to forget about it. But if Russia and China won't recognize its warrant, we are still stuck with UN inaction.

[Ed]

I've now come to the conclusion that instead of sending American troops off to fight their wars like the did in Vietnam, the Corporate Government now has to create terrorist groups and start wars by proxy. They get all the same profits but without as many dead Americans.