So the world is literally up in arms about Syria, with the US especially ready to invade. What happened to the UN and its mandate to keep peace? Eihab Boraie ponders...
People in power that think war is a solution are the same people who see numbers instead of lives. Getting into wars is easy, it's getting out of them that is tough. Elected officials are supposed to be the best problem-solvers that their nations have. Very rarely does this theory translate into practice though, and when given power, they help oppressors stand their ground and interfere in foreign affairs whenever they get the chance.
America the proud, has very little to be proud of. Maybe I am undermining their contribution to the world, though I'm not exactly sure what they are. Maybe yet another instalment in the gripping Fast and the Furious series, or perhaps the invention of the Cronut? In any case, these are just more distractions that further help their sinister population control agenda. America should really give up trying to solve the world's problem, because last I checked they cause more of them than they ever solve. America's reputation has been crumbling at home so shouldn't they worry about their own problems before trying to solve the problems of a different culture?
If they choose to attack Syria, nothing will be solved and Damascus will be lost. If America and France have actually evidence of the use of chemical weapons, then why didn't they present it to the UN? The whole world is pretty pissed about your recently exposed global digital spy network, America, and with the constant leaks, let's be honest: there's nothing you know that we won't eventually hear. And if these matters call for war, then the world should know. Why the secrecy? War is supposed to be a last option in a messed up world that accepts it as an option in the first place.
Removing Assad from power by force is going to lead to the creation of a new Taliban-like like force. Just like when Afghanistan was fighting the Russians in the 80s and America armed the Taliban. The rebels that are fighting have already been given US arms, and are so radicalised that a video of them ripping a soldier's heart out and eating it is available on YouTube. It is hard to label rebels as belonging to anyone 'terrorist' group, but many who are fighting are extremists, and would reign just as much terror as Assad if they had the power. What Syria needs is a moderate to emerge who has had enough with war. The world seems confused who the bad guy in Syria is. The truth is anyone fighting is simply bad, and should be held accountable. When over 100,000 people are dead and millions forced into becoming refugees, something needs to be done. Someone needs to emerge.
The use of chemical weapons is very alarming indeed and requires an immediate response. Remember the UN? They used to be able to do something but when Bush neutered them with his abuse in advanced interrogation techniques, or going to Iraq without presenting actual evidence of weapons of mass destruction, it's hard to count on them holding anyone accountable. How do we give the UN the power to hold oppressors accountable? That should be the debate we are having because at the end of the day it is all we've got when it comes to a global forum to prevent wars.
If the UN had any shred of authority, they would put peacekeepers on the ground and help people get on with their lives. I am still not sure why you never hear about the peacekeeping option. You'd think it would be a good start before declaring war, especially since it's one of the international organisation's original mandates. Bombing Syria's infrastructure and their military capabilities won't be helping the victims. All it'll do is create more victims. Leaving a country that is already economically screwed without an infrastructure or a military is essentially damning them for decades.