The united states should not bomb syria

He is opposed by every majority on earth both internationally and at home for this errant and politically inept impulse, by the majority of Americans, by the majority of nations, by the overwhelming majority of all official religious statements, and by the majority of US allies. The president should never have created this situation, and now will not even own it. In an off the cuff, August announcement, he blurted out a self-constraining bond of personal pride for which the US and the world now suffer.

The united states should not bomb syria

Why we should not bomb Syria The major reason for not bombing Syria is the diminishing of our humanity and civilisation. For just a moment the regular movement of medical staff round my bed seemed to stop and the nurse who fixed the ever-tightening blood pressure equipment on me disappeared.

What if the nurse was now dead; or worse, in his place came one of the heavy-booted soldiers we had all seen in images from Abu Ghraib?

The united states should not bomb syria

The pain was real enough, as in my forehead where I wear shrapnel to this day. The emotional rationality was real too, because my thinking was of the "as if" quality.

It was a kind of projected empathy, not fantasy. But I want to go further than my psychologist to claim that empathy is part of the human condition, of human civilisation, of art, and of some photography. It lies at the heart of the power of images like those from Abu Ghraib which I was remembering that day; and I feel that even more strongly after hearing Mark Neville, the official war artist in Helmand, Afghanistan, who was also suffering from post-traumatic stress, speak at the Archives of War conference in London about his photographic project, Battle Against Stigma.

Butler, like Winter, talks of "ways of framing that will bring the human into view in its frailty and precariousness, that will allow us to stand for the value of and dignity of human life, to react with outrage when lives are degraded or eviscerated without regard for their value as lives"; and seeks "alternative frames" to government and military "frames of foreclosure".

Regular genres of images So when governments go into war, as in Iraq and maybe Syriawe see the regular genres of images in our newspapers: The "collateral damage" of citizens is not represented, but foreclosed as, in building-up towards bombing in Syria, we are again told about precision weaponry.

Yet research published in The Lancet medical journal suggested that there were several hundred thousand innocent lives lost in the invasion of Iraq. ISIL looks for ever increasing ways of execution, as William Merrin, professor of media studies at Swansea University, noted at the Archives of War conference, using social media and our own mainstream media to advertise their atrocities and force worldwide participation in their horrors.

They do this to ever reduce the barriers between war zone and everyday life and to encourage further Western aggression: This is what Ken Livingston was implying last week on the television news when, opposing the bombing of Syria, he asked how it would look if we attacked ISIL in Syria in support of "our allies", having systematically ignored both politically and in our media the equally grievable ISIL killings of many more people in the Middle East.

It is also why Livingston talked of Mohammed Sidique Khan "laying down his life", to the distaste of his opponent in the news interview. Good reasons not to bomb There are many good reasons for not bombing in Syria: Memo to British PM: Less talk, more action on Syria But above all, for me the major reason for not bombing Syria is this diminishing of our humanity and civilisation, as we continue to foreclose our framing.

It will fail as a policy too, because our main targets must be the war at home: In a national news item which I produced for broadcast television on July 7,four Muslim university students told me that they did not agree with what Mohammed Sidique Khan had done a year before, but they agreed with what he had said in his suicide tape.

The united states should not bomb syria

They taught me about their concept of umma and reminded me of the power of grievability: For Muslims it indicates a history of exploitation long before Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria; and for all of us it offers the fragile future of humanity itself in an over-heating world.

John Tulloch is a British university lecturer who is best known as a survivor of the July 7, London Bombings.Here are 11 reasons the United States should stay clear of military action: 1.

Congress, the media and many in the public are asking whether Congress should authorize President Obama to use military force against Syria for alleged use of chemical weapons. Most important, we must act urgently to help end the war in Syria, starting with a ceasefire and arms embargo on all sides. Russia, Iran, and others must stop arming and funding the Syrian regime. Washington, Saudi Arabia, and other U.S. allies must stop arming and funding the . [Weigh in: Should the United States Intervene in Syria? If we wanted to win over the hearts and minds of Syrians, we should've taken a starkly different tack, one that helps not hurts, builds not.

We don't actually know who is behind the chemical weapons attacks. Syria has not attacked the United States. Syria has not attacked the United States, and there is no U.N.

Security Council authorization for a strike on Syria. It wouldn't be the first time the United States has violated international law, but doing it again adds to a damaging precedent and contributes to a lawless world.

The arguments to bomb Syria include that the United States as the leader of the free world cannot allow Assad to use chemical weapons.

This is essentially a moral argument, especially during this. 7/7 Survivor: Why we should not bomb Syria. The major reason for not bombing Syria is the diminishing of our humanity and civilisation. Aug 28,  · Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars.

But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts. Congress, the media and many in the public are asking whether Congress should authorize President Obama to use military force against Syria for alleged use of chemical weapons.

Should the U.S. Bomb Syria?