 |
| War is terrorism with a bigger budget |
The critics argue that the US and France made rush decisions against the regime. Both rebels and the government are accused of the use of such weapons.
There is this tweet asking a very serious question: Who mandate the attacks? It is not the United Nations. It is not the Congress. It is not the US citizens. So then who demand to use forces?
The Syrian government warned of grave consequences of the unilateral military attacks by the West against a sovereign nation. The Israeli citizens are already to get gas masks fearing terrorist attacks.
From Twitter:
QCT World @QCTworldAnd of course, there is this comment that candidate Obama made years ago:
Italy insists on UN mandate for any Syria strikes http://bit.ly/150pMnG
US House speaker #Boehner to White House: consult Congress before any #Syria action | Reuters http://aje.me/17hQTN6
@Scotsfox: William Hague: military strikes on Syria http://bit.ly/12DFgjI Who gave this Coalition a mandate to attack Syria? #NotInMyName
ashley HandsOffSyria @Way2Wonderland
Thousands killed in NATO airstikes on Libya. Don't do the same to Syria. #HandsOffSyria
Occupy Wall Street @OccupyWallSt
Bombing people in Syria is not the answer. http://fb.me/1ufOlUfXg
WhatSheSees @WhatSheSees
Operation Why Are We Doing This. #NameObamasNewWar
Lee Jasper @LeeJasper
#NameObamasNewWar : Operation Cost Is No Option http://twitpic.com/daq2ke
Fareed Zakaria @FareedZakaria
"U.S. has little or no hope of making a decisive impact on the course of the war in #Syria": Esfandiary on GPS @DEsfandiary
NicFiPa @NicFiPa
The current escalation of terrorist attacks against shias in #Iraq should make us think twice before intervening in #Syria
Stop the War @STWuk
Attack on #Syria is a dangerous gamble that risks escalation of war and invites retaliation @SeumasMilne @guardian http://bit.ly/13XcBcg
"The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -- Candidate Obama
Most of the people I talked to agree that airstrikes is no good in any ways. It won't stabilize the region. It is costly. And it is inhuman.
There is, however, a devout Catholic person of Italian heritage -- call her T -- that is fixated in the notion that the military invasion can be justifiable, since because the Syrian regime killed its own citizens. She was sober and repeated exactly as the propaganda says: she thinks the regime is like 'wrong'.
I tried to explain that the nation in a civil war for years. She does not seem to understand the notion of civil war, however, and keep repeated that 'it is wrong to kill people', which sounded me like an irony. The US is preparing to do the exact thing -- killing the innocent.
Simplicity is not a bad thing when it comes to making the argument clear. Facing such an obstinate refusal of even listen to reasons that BOTH SIDES USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS and keep insisted upon the US using the weapons of mass destruction somewhat appalled me.
"Let's not talk about the issue" says T. Meanwhile, while we are mute on the issue, the innocent civilians of Syria are facing death, murdered by the US, and other nations. I should pose this question to her whether T would feel better Syrians die by the US bombing.