A Proportional Response
Today our, United States Representatives, are discussing
what ought to be done about Syria. Obviously President Obama has chosen to take
the high road and give the people a voice through their representatives, but in
doing so the ignorance of people seems to come out. It is important that all
citizens of our country have an opinion, but it may be to much to ask that they
be well-informed. People have taken to social media to note their outrage and disappointment
with the President and his plan for action against Syria seemingly without all
the facts in check.
Though it may not have the same magnitude it once held,
thank you President Bush, but United States Intelligence has demonstrated that
Chemical Weapons were used on innocent civilians as a retaliatory strike
against a region that sprung an assassination attempt against Syria’s President
Bashar al-Assad. This included over four hundred people including women
and children. As the images of the deadly attacks spread across the media and
onto social media the nation wept and shook their heads, now we turn our backs
on humanity as we continue on with our daily routine.
As an American shame is the only word to describe those opposed to action. Beyond the principle of injustice, inhumanity and genocide the purpose of a strike against the al-Assad government is justified as a national security endeavor. Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized the importance of setting precedence to stop further similar attacks and the possibility of putting our direct foreign interest, neighbors and allies in peril. Should we strike back at Syria? It is the definition of a proportional response against non-humanitarian activity. Why else are we the greatest nation in the world, but to set a standard and stand by our moral convictions. Wrong is wrong. The end.
Comments
Post a Comment