With such a complex issue,
obviously there are many sides to the debate. One of the things I found most
interesting was that there were Syrians who actually wanted the US to launch
missiles in Syria. And after reading their reason for wanting that, I can
definitely see where they’re coming from; after all, it is better to live with
a little bit of hope that a strong foreign country will eventually cause a change
in the current corrupt government, even if said country is killing fellow
countrymen, than to live with none while people are still dying.
However, I still do not fully agree
with the fact that the US, or any country for that matter, should launch
missiles; after all, we have been making strides as a society on the path of nonviolence,
and once again resolving to such an extremely violent measure rather than
looking for less horrific options definitely does not sound very appealing to
me. I agree with the school of thought that believes that we should instead
convince the Russians and Chinese, Assad’s two strongest supporters at the
moment, to change their views. Perhaps (well, probably) violence will lead to
results, but is that a risk that we are willing to take? Do we want to be held
responsible for Syrian citizens’ anger if even more helpless people die while
nearly nothing in the government changes?
Furthermore, what is going to happen
to the even greater number of refugees? Ms. Fakih brought up a very good point
when she talked about how powerful countries should focus on helping those
millions of refugees in Syria and its neighboring countries. Why have we let
this gross breach of conventional human rights continue unhindered until a
chemical attack? Nations with the power to change should already be working
with the UN to aid the displaced, not just beginning on that path. I think it’s
terrible that we have not already been helping more refugees, and the fact that
now Obama is ready to missile innocent people is shocking, and not in a good
way.
Yes, this is certainly a horrible conundrum - but there are other non-violent things that can be done too. For example, stopping the arms flow from Libya into Syria. Bombing is one solution, but I think there must be more.
ReplyDelete