, , , , ,

You have to wonder why it is ‘imperative’ that the U.S. strike Syria; I do. I understand the atrocity of chemical warfare. I don’t, however, understand why the strike did not occur when Syria’s citizens were being wiped out by guns, missiles, tanks and grenades.

I’m unsettled by the President’s urgent need to intervene given the reason he has relayed. I too have issue with a dictator who has no problem with killing his citizens (regardless as to the method used). But, I wonder, is it simply concern with the people’s well-being?

I reviewed the world map and notice how close Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan are to Syria. Wasn’t it Iran who began to test and boast they have the means to torpedo chemical weapons? Did we lose one of our droids in their land and they claimed to have ‘our secrets?’ Are they the real enemy with whom we are concerned with?

If Syria’s president is willing to kill his people, I do not think he would hesitate in joining forces with Iran in their quest to launch chemical warfare with the U.S. and any other enemy they deem.

Millions of their citizens have already fled Syria – moving into parts of Iraq, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. These refugees are not a threat to the Syrian government and hope to relocate to their homeland once the civil war has ended. They will be welcomed by Syria to rebuild their country under the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, the current leader.

I didn’t know until recently that Syria was a thriving country; their economy was doing well. Many of its citizens are educated, middle class and were thriving under its ruler. For the most part, these are the citizens who have become refugees in outlining countries.

The U.S. government says it has no plans to topple the Syrian government. The question is, exactly what is our interest since Syria is not an ally?

Why not explain to the U.S. citizens that we are protecting our interests by disabling the wide spread use of chemical warfare – and that Syria, we believe, is running tests for Iraq (their ally) as to the effectiveness of it use. Syria views their rebels as useless and want to rid their land of them so it is no big deal to use them as test dummies.

I would much rather have the government tell me the truth about why we need to ‘stop’ the chemical warfare than to hand me an excuse that just does not add up to me and many other people who are not attuned to rules of engagement.

I could support the strike if its intent is to disable Iran’s ability to use chemical warfare as a means of battle with the U.S. or any other country. I could support the strike, if the U.S. were really intent on intervening with the corrupt inhuman minds who are willing to use chemical warfare on mankind by disabling the government that is in power.

Striking and withdrawing does not seem like a solution, unless, we are capable of totally dismantling their ability to use and assemble such weapons of mass destruction. Given further reason why it is important we act (alone) in this effort, could eliminate some of the discomfort most of the U.S. citizens have.

I have no way of knowing what is actual; I only know the truths I live and within it are secrets that I will probably never reveal. But if I am to be affected by matters that concern me, I would rather receive more facts than rhetoric rather than have whimsical reasons that cause suspect.