Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Angry political and protester hawks pressuring the President to respond have mis-placed responsibility for dealing with Syria:
1. as the President said it is a violation of international LAW . As such, it should be handled by LEGAL MEANS not militarily. America is the leading military super power. We have a moral responsibility to use it justly or be tempted to have a Macavalian ethic, that might is right. It looks like we already have a gut emotional reaction to crisis in the world to act militarily. Hopefully reason will win out in this crisis and we can take a look at ourselves and question where we are going as a nation.
2. The UN is responsible for enforcing international law. They have a due process involving the international court at the Hague for trying perpetrators of crimes against humanity. They should take action to identify the responsible persons and detain them. America could work with them
3. A strike in Syria is holding the people of Syria, who have suffered greatly, responsible, causing more hardship for them. Since the strike is limited without follow up with ground troops, how will the leaders get justice personally? What are the plans for justice after the strikes?
4. The people of Syria need AID not BOMBS dropped on them. With the responsible leaders still in power, how can we be certain the people will get the aid and the leaders won't benefit?
5. THE PROTESTERS SHOULD SET UP IN FRONT OF THE UN, NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. The President and Congress should put pressure on the UN to carry out its responsibility.
Otherwise what is the purpose of international law? Is the message to despots leading countries around the world that they can commit crimes against humanity and not face PERSONAL consequences? ALL MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL must be held responsible for enforcing the law. They can't let political differences within the council keep them from doing their duty, as there is clear evidence that the crimes HAVE been committed and can't be in question.
Where are the sequester hawks with apocalyptic warnings about our debt in this case? Do they prefer war to health care or supporting our seniors?