This week’s topic:
Should the U.S. intervention in Syria be limited to only air strikes?
I used to believe that the world shouldn’t intervene in Syria’s struggles using military action.
Then I was forwarded an opinion piece written by a Syrian currently studying in the U.S. that changed my thinking. He remarked that while an American intervention could fundamentally change the lives of Syrian citizens forever, to Americans the bigger issues are President Barack Obama’s credibility and the “red line” that Bashar al-Assad has allegedly crossed.
“This is not to suggest intervention is either right or wrong,” Mamoun Mayhani writes, “but rather to highlight the sad fact that it did not matter that humans were killed, but rather how humans were killed.”
While the use of chemical agents classified as weapons of mass destruction clearly takes the conflict in Syria to a level not previously seen, the sudden move to action on behalf of the U.S. seems rather late in the game to many of the millions of Syrian refugees who’ve fled the country.
The motivation and political strategy behind the American push for airstrikes is an emotional debate. But to be blunt, even Syrians do not agree on what should be done. They simply want help. They want this non-stop fighting, in which thousands are being killed every single month, to stop…
READ the rest of this weeks column at this link: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2013/09/08/need-for-action-in-syria-trumps-concerns-about-sending-in-troops
When it comes to voting though, because I ended up agreeing with Brent, we’ve done something different this week. Instead of voting for who you thinks wins the debate, you’ll vote to answer the question, Should the U.S. intervention in Syria be limited to only air strikes?
Response to my column this week was swift yesterday on twitter and via email. My opinion on the matter surprised many people. Because so many columnists and media outlets have done the debate on whether the US should even intervene in Syria, we decided to take a look at the proposed intervention the US has planned in the event they decide to go in.
Mere days ago, I was against a military intervention in Syria. But after researching, and reading over the weekend in preparation for my column, it became starkly clear that in much of the debate and coverage, the voices of Syrians overseas were missing. In fact, it was somewhat difficult to find credible articles or coverage detailing what Syrians want.
These are some of the compelling articles, debates and coverage I found that prompted my change of mind. I’m not an advocate of war, but I think my column is very clear. Syria needs help fast.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/5/debate_will_a_us_attack_help ( read the transcript in addition to watching the video)