http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/08/opinion/clark-syria-intervention/index.html
Why does the United States have to get involved in their mess? It's up to the Arab League to get involved?Is it wasting people's lives in US, resources, and time by thinking and playing "policemen in the world" and let them sort it out?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Perhaps, but I would hope all countries would feel partially responsible for not acting to end atrocities that involve the mass killings of innocent people. People complain about the involvement of the U.S. and its allies until they are the ones in trouble, and then the outside world is the first place they seek help. Who is going to help the Syrians? Not Syria. The Arab League has an excellent plan of action but their hands are tied until they get more international support for the plan. So while I think the U.S. shouldn't rush to have a physical military presence in Syria, it should give humanitarian aid, supplies, and put its full support behind the Arab League and the Gulf Coast Countries who are desperate to take action on this crisis.
ReplyDeleteThe Curious Case of Syria, is going to remain a storied historical blot in the suspect corridors of the "civilized" committee of nations, in ways that we would never have thought. There is a raw fear, cutting so deep and permitting the treatment of a regime feeding on its own people, like the plague. Why, no one wants to touch Syria, only history, would counsel us...I had some two cents about this on this link below:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_4986c84c-603c-11e1-8c78-001871e3ce6c.html
I agree with Melissa in this situation. I understand that the United States is seen by some as a country that needs to start minding their own business, but in instances where innocent people are being violently attacked and murdered can we consciously sit here and do nothing about it?
ReplyDelete