Last year, President Barack Obama warned Syria that his position on their civil war would change if President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.
That happened Aug. 21, the U.S. claims, when Syrian regimes killed 1,400 civilians — including more than 400 children — in a chemical attack.
Now lawmakers are discussing whether or not to use military action in response.
What do you think? Should the U.S. use launch a military strike against Syria?
Much of the discussion of the SWyria problem and Obama’s actions are sadly beside the point. The terms and limits of the discussion have been so extremely manipulated and limited, in the empire’s attempts to control what we think, and what we perceive as reality, what’s happening, that very much is left out. Rarely do I hear what several Syrian ex-pats have referred to as the Israeli- Iranian issue. We, being an extension of Israeli foreign policy, support Israel’s anti Iranian position, and Russia counters with attempting to empower the elements in Iran that support their influence in the region. The recent history of Syria and our foreign relations there is a playing out of that, including all the manipulations of military and chemical warfare there. The real problem rests in our support of Israel’s conservative government, and the Palestinian questions. And the way the discussion then breaks is everything must be in support of the global capitalist profit motives. Since there is little profit to be achieved by court action, or forceful selective boycotts, we talk about military intervention, the worst, “beside the point” method of addressing any problem.
And what I’m talking about is relevant to our faiths, our moral relations with our neighbors, the poor and powerless, and , most assuredly, the survival of life as we know it.