September 9, 2013 9:31:15 AM
If Obama strikes Syria we had better be prepared for its consequences.
History tells us U.S. war is never a conclusive solution. It makes human lives miserable, both for the winners and losers. And, that's always been the case. It's what happened in the last two World Wars and in wars that have taken place since. In what way is Obama justified attacking Syria? Syria can kill their own people by using bullets, bombing and other means, which of course they have been doing. Why is the use of chemical weapons a different justification? Truly speaking, death is death whatever way it happens. The Syrian government knows it shouldn't have used Sarin gas, because they are refusing to admit they have used it. All evidence suggests they have.
Now the question is why we as a country have a responsibility to attack Syria? Were any U.S. citizens killed by chemical gas in Syria? If there is no killing of U.S. citizens, why should the killing of people in other countries by their governments be our business? Should the U.S. involve itself in all the internal matters or killings in other countries around the world?
Every U.S. citizen knows Obama wants to get us out of Afghanistan, a war started unjustly by his predecessor. But now why does he want to enter into a war, even a limited war? I am sure if the U.S. strikes Syria, U.S. citizens will be killed around the world just because they are American. There is no UN mandate to strike Syria. Even our closest allies are not participating or backing us in this situation. So then why would the Obama government put innocent American citizens at risk around the world?
Finally, if Congress doesn't approve, Obama shouldn't strike Syria. Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner; he shouldn't go for a war, especially when our citizens' lives are not at risk.
The writer is a professor in the Department of Sciences and Mathematics at Mississippi University for Women.