The past few weeks have been full of commentators criticizing Obama for proposing to strike in Syria to prevent the dictator from using chemical weapons against his own people. On one side are those arguing - like Senator McCain- that the limited strikes being proposed are not enough and that if necessary the US should invade Syria. On the other extreme are those arguing that we should just shut our eyes and let the dictator do what he will in his own country. So the moral dilemna of our times is simple-- should we just shut our eyes and ears or can we do something.
The facts are clear - the dictator in Syria did indeed use chemical weapons. What is not so clear is what the international community wants to do about it. No that is not entirely true, they want to do something to stop him but want someone else to do it.
The posturing of the politicians on this issue is positively nauseating. Obama should have gone in earlier- no leading from behind. He should return his Nobel Peace Prize for not preventing the deaths of 100000 Syrians. But he should not use any weapons to do it!
It is clear that the international community cannot just close its eyes. The memories of Nuremberg and of Nazi Germany where an entire nation closed its eyes to the plight of millions of Jews should be fresh in our minds. So must the deaths in Ruanda.
People need to remember that as the poet Dante said “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”
So we must act and Obama is the right person to lead this - after all his people were not "seen" for almost a century in the richest country in the world. Critizing his actions without proposing an alternative is particularly stupid, and commentators on the press and tv are full of various accusations of Obama overreach or underreach but with no sane alternative course of action to follow.
It is time to stop this posturing and face the facts. Assad did kill his people using chemical weapons banned by the United Nations and under a treaty his country did sign. The world cannot sit idly by. Someone must act and if it is Obama more strength to him.
The facts are clear - the dictator in Syria did indeed use chemical weapons. What is not so clear is what the international community wants to do about it. No that is not entirely true, they want to do something to stop him but want someone else to do it.
The posturing of the politicians on this issue is positively nauseating. Obama should have gone in earlier- no leading from behind. He should return his Nobel Peace Prize for not preventing the deaths of 100000 Syrians. But he should not use any weapons to do it!
It is clear that the international community cannot just close its eyes. The memories of Nuremberg and of Nazi Germany where an entire nation closed its eyes to the plight of millions of Jews should be fresh in our minds. So must the deaths in Ruanda.
People need to remember that as the poet Dante said “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”
So we must act and Obama is the right person to lead this - after all his people were not "seen" for almost a century in the richest country in the world. Critizing his actions without proposing an alternative is particularly stupid, and commentators on the press and tv are full of various accusations of Obama overreach or underreach but with no sane alternative course of action to follow.
It is time to stop this posturing and face the facts. Assad did kill his people using chemical weapons banned by the United Nations and under a treaty his country did sign. The world cannot sit idly by. Someone must act and if it is Obama more strength to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment