First, here's a taste of the news currently circulating global news sources:
The United Nations is seeking more concrete evidence to establish whether President Bashar al-Assad’s government has used chemical weapons in its conflict with the rebels. While the United States and other countries say they believe the regime likely used the deadly nerve agent sarin, U.N. inspectors say the current evidence is not strong enough to meet its standard of proof.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Syria to grant access to U.N. investigators so they can collect samples from alleged attack sites and victims. Ban Ki-moon: "I take seriously the recent intelligence report of the United States about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. On-site activities are essential if the United Nations is to be able to establish the facts and clear all the doubts surrounding this issue. A credible and comprehensive inquiry requires full access to the site where chemical weapons are alleged to have been used. I again urge Syrian authorities to allow the investigation to proceed without delay and without any conditions." -From Democracy Now!
The question: Are chemical weapons really the last step that will get the US involved in Syria? Why? What about the wishes of the people? Why does the U.S. always have to "get involved" when there are so many issues at home? How could the U.S. actually "help"? The opposition is asking for assistance because they have been taking major hits from the Assad regime for months. They have asked for support in weapons. If any support will be provided, perhaps listening to them is a justicecentric step forward?
From a sustainability perspective, weapons are not. While the violence they bring forth is at the root of this issue, that IS what the people are asking for, not a full U.S. retaliation. By why are chemical weapons the deal breaker? The obvious answer is obvious, but the real question is for more than a year the opposition has been forced into refugee status, faced bombings and other unaccounted and accounted for acts of terror.
Although the use of chemical weapons brings a new horrific flavor to the conflict, why is that the last straw? Why is this conversation going where it's going now when these people have been brutalized for months on end? If chemical weapons weren't in the cards would the UN and US be ok with what's going on? Is that the way they've really felt? War is not sustainable. There has got to be another way for peace, justice and freedom in Syria...
