Response to Syria

16 hours ago ...

Should the civilized world respond to the slaughter in Syria? (NC-17)

 

Of course we should.  

More than a hundred-thousand have died. We must intervene and bring the violence to an end.

Innocents have been driven from their homes, their towns leveled and burned; more than a million are in refugee camps.  They've lost everything.

12 hours ago ...

Now in addition to bullets and bombs, there are chemical weapons being used, and the associated extraordinary suffering is upon us.

Should the world step in?  Yes!  Absolutely. 

Is a military strike by the US likely to be helpful?  That's the question in the news.  But what is the likelihood that limited strikes will accomplish what's needed...  an end to the violence...

We need a solution not unlike an elementary school's handling of bullies.  The offending children need to be dragged off the playground, weapons confiscated, and taken to the principles office.  Shooting up the playground isn't likely to help much. 

The question of whether or not to execute a limited military strike doesn't begin to address the circumstance.  While the last two years in Syria appear to be of a military nature, the truth perhaps is that the individual events are murder and the perpetrators are criminals.

The pope has called us to prayer for peace in the nation.  An end to the violence is his concern.  I don't think he's looking for a surgical slap on the hand for using bad weapons.  The list of crimes begins with a hundred thousand people having been killed, and a million have been driven from their homes to suffer for years, having lost everything.  Inexcusable.  Yes, the chemical weapons were also an inexcusable escalation of the inexcusable violence.  Should the world step in? Yes!  Absolutely.