Syria, Chemical Weapons, The UN, and The Continued Refugee Problem and Deaths
The United Nations, Russia, Syria, and the USA had come to agreement for Syria to give up its chemical weapons - that's the good news.
Still, there are some unanswered questions - who authorized the use of those weapons on civilians and rebels, and will anyone ever be brought to justice for it.
Next, what about all the other killing, are we to let all that slide, even with millions in refugee camps and over 150,000 already dead? Let's talk shall we? The New York Times had an interesting piece published on October 6, 2013 titled; "Plan for Ridding Syria of Chemical Arms Includes Brute Force and Chemistry" by Michael R Gordon, which states some of the plans including bulldozers, neutralizing chemicals, inspections, and such all to be worked on as early as November, but how many more people will die before this is completed? Seriously, this is essentially a license to continue killing, albeit another way, until it's all done.
Wow, are we really condoning all that? You see, if it is in the best interest of all the other interests we have of ridding Syria of chemical weapons, then does that mean that having Syria's Assad in power until that job is completed is also in our best interests - if so - that does pose a problem on another human rights front, namely the killing of now some 150,000 Syrians by the regime? Isn't anyone concerned about that? If we don't care about the slaughter and don't care about the regime, then why not just eliminate all of it? See that point, what sort of insane trade-off are we making here, what about our values, or is all that just BS, if so, then this UN Chemical weapons deal is just a sick joke in the end.
See that point? 3-wrongs don't make a right, even if three left turns do suffice for a right turn - even if the energy wasted is a casualty of the game.
I must question, and an answer would be appropriate.
Iran is still involved in Syria, our allies are still intervening, and the battle ground for political will is killing 10s of thousands of people every couple of months.
Humans? What they heck are the UN folks doing? Making decisions on the fly is one thing, but if the end game refuses to address these other issues, then to what avail is such a strategic goal in the first place? Well, I sincerely hope you will hear my words and consider all this - think on it.
Still, there are some unanswered questions - who authorized the use of those weapons on civilians and rebels, and will anyone ever be brought to justice for it.
Next, what about all the other killing, are we to let all that slide, even with millions in refugee camps and over 150,000 already dead? Let's talk shall we? The New York Times had an interesting piece published on October 6, 2013 titled; "Plan for Ridding Syria of Chemical Arms Includes Brute Force and Chemistry" by Michael R Gordon, which states some of the plans including bulldozers, neutralizing chemicals, inspections, and such all to be worked on as early as November, but how many more people will die before this is completed? Seriously, this is essentially a license to continue killing, albeit another way, until it's all done.
Wow, are we really condoning all that? You see, if it is in the best interest of all the other interests we have of ridding Syria of chemical weapons, then does that mean that having Syria's Assad in power until that job is completed is also in our best interests - if so - that does pose a problem on another human rights front, namely the killing of now some 150,000 Syrians by the regime? Isn't anyone concerned about that? If we don't care about the slaughter and don't care about the regime, then why not just eliminate all of it? See that point, what sort of insane trade-off are we making here, what about our values, or is all that just BS, if so, then this UN Chemical weapons deal is just a sick joke in the end.
See that point? 3-wrongs don't make a right, even if three left turns do suffice for a right turn - even if the energy wasted is a casualty of the game.
I must question, and an answer would be appropriate.
Iran is still involved in Syria, our allies are still intervening, and the battle ground for political will is killing 10s of thousands of people every couple of months.
Humans? What they heck are the UN folks doing? Making decisions on the fly is one thing, but if the end game refuses to address these other issues, then to what avail is such a strategic goal in the first place? Well, I sincerely hope you will hear my words and consider all this - think on it.