In Syria, more and more people are sadly dying. According to U.N. estimates, there are more than 7,500 men, woman, and children that had died so far this year. They say that this is on average 100 people a day. On Tuesday, there were 91 people that died including 3 woman and 2 children in Syria.
The LCC estimates that since March, when the government started the crackdown, over 9,000 people have been killed including 500 children, 2,493 civilians, and 1,345 soldiers / police (and the number is growing daily).
When I first read this article I could not believe how huge these numbers where. 9,000 people killed since March is astonishing. Although 9,000 is a number it seems even bigger when you think about how these are actually people. When one person dies the whole family goes through mourning. So just suppose each killing came from one family -- that is 9,000 family mourning. That's a crazy number! I just hope this killing can stop or at least slow down.
It should be noted that these deaths are not from hunger or illness but violent killing. "Lynn Pascoe, the U.N.'s undersecretary general for political affairs, told the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday that Al-Assad's regime has 'subjected residents in several cities to indiscriminant bombardment by tank and rocket fire.'" This seems like a very violent way to kill and I can't believe the United States isn't trying to do more to stop this violent murder.
The USA has always been a super power that has stepping in when people needed help, so why don't we step in now? It seems like the people could really use the help right about now. American has always been against criminals and al-Assad is clearly viewed as a criminal. Even Clinton thinks so! “Clinton, asked at a Senate Appropriations Committee whether al-Assad should be viewed as a war criminal, said, "I think that based on definitions of war criminal and crimes against humanity, there would be an argument to be made that he would fit into that category."
2 comments:
Earlier last year with the start of the Arab Spring, the United Nations Security barely passed a resolution to institute a no-fly zone over Libya on the basis that the international community had a "responsibility to protect" the citizens of Libya because the government of Libya was clearly no longer doing so.
Even with this resolution the 2011 Security Council members Russia, Germany, Brazil, India, and China abstained from such decision. Clearly, the impetus behind entering Libya was doubtful among the greater international community. In the end, a majority of the fighting in Libya done by non-Libyan combatants was led by NATO (of which Brazil, India, and China are not a part of and of which Russia strongly opposes).
In the aftermath of the Libyan campaign, it is hard to say that the "responsibility to protect" is still a legitimate reason to intervene in a country. If a "responsibility to protect" was all that was necessary for a UN sanctioned intervention, we might as well also enter many other nations around the world (Sudan, Somalia, and Uganda to name a few).
Simply speaking, NATO has reiterated several times that it was not interested in a campaign in Syria. The geographic differences between Libya and Syria differ by a great extent, thus changing the dynamics of warfare. Though there may be growing pressure for NATO to intervene in Syria, the U.S would never enter Syria without backing of the international community nor should it enter Syria without the backing of the international community.
I agree completely with Andrew. While it might seem like common sense to help those in need, the United States cannot simply strut around the globe playing the hero.
If anything the United States has already overextended its influence in parts of the Middle East.
Post a Comment