I can't give you an adequate break down of the pros and cons of a strike on Syria. While I know a lot, I am not well versed in the military, political and economic factors that go into making a fully informed decision. So what I can only talk about is the moral implications of a strike (or refusing to strike) as I see them. The Geneva protocol is a protocol that finds its roots in the Hague conventions, which was one of the first modern day attempts at brokering peace and setting limitations for war. One of these limitations is a strict prohibition of projectile objects being used as weapons for the purpose of suffocation (i.e. chemical weapons). This was passed in 1899, 114 years ago. The Geneva conventions adopted it as protocol and the general assembly has passed several resolutions reaffirming the United Nations commitment to this particular piece of doctrine. In other words, most of the world is in pretty much agreement that chemical warfare is simply unacceptable and inhumane. Yet Assad has been allowed to amass large amounts of chemical weaponry and use said weapons on his own people. This is unacceptable.
I don't know what the United States is going to do, but the world needs to respond to this travesty. If the United States is the only responder, then shame on the world for not responding. As humans, chemical weaponry should be taboo. If we idly look the other way as these weapons are used right in front of our faces, then why do we even have a Geneva protocol? Why do we have any sort of international code, if it can be nonchalantly broken with no expected penalty? This is possibly one of the most clear cut decisions out there. Either we are a country and a world of ideals or we aren't. If we find ourselves in the former group then we must strike. If we find ourselves in the latter, then a strike isn't in our future.
We need to strike for our ideals. Have there been chemical attacks where the world has looked the other way, yes I'm sure there has been. But this is different. We can watch people dying on video from these weapons. We aren't just looking the other way with blissful ignorance. We are abandoning what has been considered a moral standard all around the world. So please, don't talk to me about petty politics of this "being another Iraq" or "none of our business" because it is our business. It's everyone's business. And the entire world should be doing something about it. Unfortunately America and France seem to be the only two countries at the vanguard of our humanity.
I don't know what the United States is going to do, but the world needs to respond to this travesty. If the United States is the only responder, then shame on the world for not responding. As humans, chemical weaponry should be taboo. If we idly look the other way as these weapons are used right in front of our faces, then why do we even have a Geneva protocol? Why do we have any sort of international code, if it can be nonchalantly broken with no expected penalty? This is possibly one of the most clear cut decisions out there. Either we are a country and a world of ideals or we aren't. If we find ourselves in the former group then we must strike. If we find ourselves in the latter, then a strike isn't in our future.
We need to strike for our ideals. Have there been chemical attacks where the world has looked the other way, yes I'm sure there has been. But this is different. We can watch people dying on video from these weapons. We aren't just looking the other way with blissful ignorance. We are abandoning what has been considered a moral standard all around the world. So please, don't talk to me about petty politics of this "being another Iraq" or "none of our business" because it is our business. It's everyone's business. And the entire world should be doing something about it. Unfortunately America and France seem to be the only two countries at the vanguard of our humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment