Spare the innocent
The use of gas to kill people is illegal, but what about the use of any weapon that results in the death of innocent people?
Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking on the use of gas by the Syrian government, was very forceful regarding the gas. But the approval of the use of drones that kill innocent people is ruled as acceptable. The drones used had the same results — killing of one or two insurgents with several innocent victims dying.
What about a possible responsible action of the NATO countries? The response will result in killing insurgents, government troops and innocent people. The leader of Syria will suffer no ill will.
All three actions have the same result. Why should a response be initiated because gas is used when drones or a strike on Syria have the same result.
The person who initiated the use of gas will go without punishment. He will not be killed or captured in the NATO strike if looking at past NATO strikes. Spare the innocent people.
In the 20th century of many terrible wars, my generation learned there are five evils that should never happen even in war:
1. Abuse of prisoners of war.
3. Use of chemical weapons.
4. Use of biological weapons.
5. Use of nuclear weapons.
My generation said we would take whatever action was necessary to punish those who did these things and make sure others would be deterred from ever doing them again. In the 21st century, the new generation has capitulated on the first two evils. If we don’t stop the third evil the fourth and fifth will inevitably soon follow.
Attacking Syria is not about regime change. It is not about starting a new war. It is not about political party advantage. It is only about punishment for an inhumane act of evil people, and it should be a strong enough attack that it will always be remembered by future evil people as a consequence of the action they plan to taken.
As you go to bed tonight ask yourself what action we should take if the attack had been biological or even, God forbid, nuclear. I think our response to the Syrian use of poison gas should be no less than our response would be to a nuclear attack.
Fortunately, we don’t have to decide on a specific action ourselves. We just need to support an appropriate and substantial response.
Rethink it, Corker
I am asking U.S. Sen. Bob Corker to change his vote on the Syria intervention. His current position is on the wrong side of the people he represents by a lopsided margin and will be on the wrong side of history if he votes yes.
The senator and I are about the same age and we both should be able to look at the history of wars fought by this country and see that lobbing a few missiles into Syria will only get us deeper into a conflict. Since the end of World War II, we have been in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. We failed in all those endeavors for one reason — we do not have the will to win.
Our policies and tactics cause protracted conflicts that cost American lives and lots of money. If we are going to war, we need to annihilate the enemy and Iran would be a good place to start. Syria is just a side show. The voters in the Volunteer State expect Corker to represent us and abide by our opinions and direction.
I strongly oppose unilateral military action by the United States in Syria. It is time for our nation to redefine the meaning of “national interest” and narrow that concept to clear cut defense of our territorial boundaries.
I also applaud President Obama’s reconsideration of United States military action without the full support of Congress. It is time for someone to lead the way in limiting the power of the executive branch to wage war. This takes remarkable spiritual courage that could well be the crowning achievement of his administration.
In addition, I support using all nonmilitary actions available to help bring an end to the civil war in Syria and the horrible atrocities associated with it.