Tweet
IS US MILITARY STRIKE AGAINST SYRIA ACCEPTABLE?
- SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
By Appo K. Jabarian
Executive Publisher / Managing Editor
USA Armenian Life Magazine
September 12, 2013
Intense negotiations between the U.S., Russia, China, France and the
U.K - the five permanent members of UN Security Council,are under
way at the United Nations about the content of an agreement on Syria.
In case these negotiations linger, Will the U.S. Neo-Cons respect the
will of the huge majority of the American people not to go to war,
or will they find a way to bypass them and go about their 'business'
of spreading misery, death and destruction in order to monopolize
the natural resources of the Middle East?
In the last three weeks, President Barack Obama has brought the United
States to the brink of a new war.
For nearly a week he pressured U.S. Congress to pass a highly
controversial resolution calling for U.S. military strike against
Syria.
Literally millions of Americans mobilized and took to the streets in
widespread protests against a new war in Middle East.
As a follow-up to my column of last week on the proposed congressional
resolution, I interviewed several members of the community across the
United States and Europe. I asked a single question: "Do you agree
with the proposed congressional resolution calling for US military
strike against Syria and why?"
The opponents of war far outnumbered those in favor. The political
landscape in U.S. Congress was no different. The members of Congress
who opposed the resolution far outnumbered the proponents.
The following are responses expressed by some of the interviewees. The
proponents declined to make public comments.
U.S. Federal Judge Dickran Tevrizian (Ret.) stated: "I do not agree
that Congress should approve of a resolution calling for any type
of military strike or action against the present regime inSyria. I
do not condone the conduct of the present Syrian Government but feel
strongly that the United States should not interject itself in what
is clearly a civil war with what the President of the United States
has described as military action of a limited scope and duration. It
has not been made clear to the American public what national security
interests of the United States are involved, or at risk, or who the
rebel forces are aligned with. I am also afraid of the collateral
damage to innocent civilians and possible repercussions that will be
takenagainst the minority Christian population by the rebels and/or
the present Syrian Government as retribution. A limited intervention
by the United States accomplishes nothing but will turn the majority
population of the Middle East further against the United States and
will continue to destabilize the area. A cosmeticmilitary strike will
prove to be an embarrassment to the United States and could possibly
escalate into a major world conflict. If the United States really wants
to help it could provide needed humanitarian relief to the hundreds of
thousands of displaced persons that have fled to neighboring countries
by providing food, shelter, water, and medical assistance."
Baroness Caroline Cox, a member of the British House of Lords, wrote
to USA Armenian Life: "No, I do not!" During an August 29 speech in
the British House of Lords, Baroness Cox emphasized: "I share the
profound concerns about a military intervention that could unleash
even more suffering. Bringing the perpetrators of crimes against
humanity to justice must be the priority, not supporting, either
directly or indirectly, militias that are also committing heinous and
egregious violations of human rights. Adding to the number of hapless
refugees and escalating the conflict seems to be neither rational
nor productive. It will simply add to the totality of human misery,
and certainly the first to suffer will be the minorities in Syria."
California Supreme Court Justice Armand Arabian (Ret.) said: "I do not
recommend bombing Syriawhen there is a possibility for a diplomatic
resolution. As some who has served this country as an infantry company
commander, I know full well what this bombing can bring upon innocent
people. Therefore I recommend diplomatic solution."
Ann Noonan, Executive Director of CUSIB (Committee on U.S.
International Broadcasting) said: "I respect and support Pope Francis'
call for peace. I hope and pray that the US Congress will represent
the overwhelming sentiment of our nation which is not to initiate a
war. Military force will only beget more violence. Only dialogue can
bring about peace in Syria."
Bruce J. Janigian, A.B., J.D., LL.M., a former Fulbright professor
of law; Judge Advocate for the US Navy in Europe and as Attorney
Adviser to the US Agency for International Development globally and
international legal expert with more than 35-years of experience
advising government and business leaders on their global interests
said to USA Armenian Life: "Where is the concern for the refugees
and feeding the starving? A responsible nation would call for a
cease fire and ICRC (International Commission of the Red Cross)
and Red Crescent intervention. An irresponsible and immoral nation
would want to weaken the only regime capable of providing civil order
to prolong the fighting and continue the bloodshed. It would also
want to provoke a wider war with Iran. A responsible nation would be
increasing assistance to countries like Armenia that are caring for
refugees. An irresponsible country would dare to speak of concern
for the dead as justification to promote further killing."
Harut Sassounian, Publisher of The California Courier responded: "It
would be foolish for the Obama Administration to declare war on Syria.
Such an attack would have far reaching consequences, causing
widespread death and destruction to the people of Syria and
neighboring countries. I believe that wisdom will eventually prevail
and Pres. Obama will be forced to get off his war-mongering high
horse! I believe that there is a diplomatic solution to the Syrian
crisis. Pouring oil on the fire is not the solution."
Former U.S. Air Force pilot, former Mayor and Council Member of
Glendale City Council, now City Treasurer Rafi Manoukian CPA, MBA
stated: "I'm opposed to any military strikes against Syria. I am very
disappointed in the Obama administration. It seems they have taken a
page from President Bush's playbook when we invaded Iraq looking for
WMDs. I call on all our representatives to vote no on the proposed
congressional Resolution for military strikes. We should stop arming
the Rebels as well, without our weapons and our encouragement this
civil war would have been prevented. Enough of wars."
Rev. David K. Farley, Pastor of Echo Park United Methodist Church, Los
Angeles said: "As a Christian and as a United Methodist Pastor I join
the leaders of the majority of Christian Denominations in this land in
calling upon the US congress to vote against military force in Syria.
A military strike in Syria is a false choice between bombing and
impunity. Only a political solution to the conflict in Syria will
end the suffering of its people. Our military involvement will only
further escalate an already brutal war and will in fact undermine the
prospect of negotiations to ensure a just and sustainable future for
the Syrians. Rather the U.S. should call for all parties to cease
all military activities in Syria and work urgently to de-escalate
the crisis, together with other actors in the region and beyond."
Former Mayor of Pasadena and a highly respected criminal defense
attorney William M. Paparian underlined: "No because it is in response
to a classic "false flag" operation. Always remember the Gulf of
Tonkin incident.
Professor Berj Boyajian (USC, Loyola and Pepperdine Law Schools)
noted: "No I don't. I would like to give the negotiation on the
Russian proposal a real chance to succeed. The benefit of waiting for
the Syrians to deliver the chemical arsenal (stock) outweighs the
damages of attacking Syria and then realizing that the negotiation
could have succeeded. After all the President said after consulting
General Dempsey 'there is no urgency in attacking Syria, it could be
tomorrow in a week or a month.'"
For two weeks, the world witnessed an international political
drama/comedy performed by neo-cons in Washington.
Some of them continue to remain hidden. Others such as U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry have unmasked themselves.
They threaten to bomb a foreign sovereign state like Syria under
the pretext of "bringing democracy," or "disabling weapons of mass
destruction" including chemical ones. But their real objectives, kept
under the cover of "punishing crimes against humanity" is to coerce
Syria to 'divorce' Russia and the East in general and submit to the
dictates of western financial oligarchy (oil and energy interests as
well as military industrial complex) that has long hijacked U.S.
foreign policy purely for self interests.
But his time around, the Neo-Cons are met with politically seasoned
and relatively better-informed populace that refuses to be bypassed.
http://www.armenianlife.com/2013/09/12/is-us-military-strike-against-syria-acceptable/
From: Baghdasarian
- SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
By Appo K. Jabarian
Executive Publisher / Managing Editor
USA Armenian Life Magazine
September 12, 2013
Intense negotiations between the U.S., Russia, China, France and the
U.K - the five permanent members of UN Security Council,are under
way at the United Nations about the content of an agreement on Syria.
In case these negotiations linger, Will the U.S. Neo-Cons respect the
will of the huge majority of the American people not to go to war,
or will they find a way to bypass them and go about their 'business'
of spreading misery, death and destruction in order to monopolize
the natural resources of the Middle East?
In the last three weeks, President Barack Obama has brought the United
States to the brink of a new war.
For nearly a week he pressured U.S. Congress to pass a highly
controversial resolution calling for U.S. military strike against
Syria.
Literally millions of Americans mobilized and took to the streets in
widespread protests against a new war in Middle East.
As a follow-up to my column of last week on the proposed congressional
resolution, I interviewed several members of the community across the
United States and Europe. I asked a single question: "Do you agree
with the proposed congressional resolution calling for US military
strike against Syria and why?"
The opponents of war far outnumbered those in favor. The political
landscape in U.S. Congress was no different. The members of Congress
who opposed the resolution far outnumbered the proponents.
The following are responses expressed by some of the interviewees. The
proponents declined to make public comments.
U.S. Federal Judge Dickran Tevrizian (Ret.) stated: "I do not agree
that Congress should approve of a resolution calling for any type
of military strike or action against the present regime inSyria. I
do not condone the conduct of the present Syrian Government but feel
strongly that the United States should not interject itself in what
is clearly a civil war with what the President of the United States
has described as military action of a limited scope and duration. It
has not been made clear to the American public what national security
interests of the United States are involved, or at risk, or who the
rebel forces are aligned with. I am also afraid of the collateral
damage to innocent civilians and possible repercussions that will be
takenagainst the minority Christian population by the rebels and/or
the present Syrian Government as retribution. A limited intervention
by the United States accomplishes nothing but will turn the majority
population of the Middle East further against the United States and
will continue to destabilize the area. A cosmeticmilitary strike will
prove to be an embarrassment to the United States and could possibly
escalate into a major world conflict. If the United States really wants
to help it could provide needed humanitarian relief to the hundreds of
thousands of displaced persons that have fled to neighboring countries
by providing food, shelter, water, and medical assistance."
Baroness Caroline Cox, a member of the British House of Lords, wrote
to USA Armenian Life: "No, I do not!" During an August 29 speech in
the British House of Lords, Baroness Cox emphasized: "I share the
profound concerns about a military intervention that could unleash
even more suffering. Bringing the perpetrators of crimes against
humanity to justice must be the priority, not supporting, either
directly or indirectly, militias that are also committing heinous and
egregious violations of human rights. Adding to the number of hapless
refugees and escalating the conflict seems to be neither rational
nor productive. It will simply add to the totality of human misery,
and certainly the first to suffer will be the minorities in Syria."
California Supreme Court Justice Armand Arabian (Ret.) said: "I do not
recommend bombing Syriawhen there is a possibility for a diplomatic
resolution. As some who has served this country as an infantry company
commander, I know full well what this bombing can bring upon innocent
people. Therefore I recommend diplomatic solution."
Ann Noonan, Executive Director of CUSIB (Committee on U.S.
International Broadcasting) said: "I respect and support Pope Francis'
call for peace. I hope and pray that the US Congress will represent
the overwhelming sentiment of our nation which is not to initiate a
war. Military force will only beget more violence. Only dialogue can
bring about peace in Syria."
Bruce J. Janigian, A.B., J.D., LL.M., a former Fulbright professor
of law; Judge Advocate for the US Navy in Europe and as Attorney
Adviser to the US Agency for International Development globally and
international legal expert with more than 35-years of experience
advising government and business leaders on their global interests
said to USA Armenian Life: "Where is the concern for the refugees
and feeding the starving? A responsible nation would call for a
cease fire and ICRC (International Commission of the Red Cross)
and Red Crescent intervention. An irresponsible and immoral nation
would want to weaken the only regime capable of providing civil order
to prolong the fighting and continue the bloodshed. It would also
want to provoke a wider war with Iran. A responsible nation would be
increasing assistance to countries like Armenia that are caring for
refugees. An irresponsible country would dare to speak of concern
for the dead as justification to promote further killing."
Harut Sassounian, Publisher of The California Courier responded: "It
would be foolish for the Obama Administration to declare war on Syria.
Such an attack would have far reaching consequences, causing
widespread death and destruction to the people of Syria and
neighboring countries. I believe that wisdom will eventually prevail
and Pres. Obama will be forced to get off his war-mongering high
horse! I believe that there is a diplomatic solution to the Syrian
crisis. Pouring oil on the fire is not the solution."
Former U.S. Air Force pilot, former Mayor and Council Member of
Glendale City Council, now City Treasurer Rafi Manoukian CPA, MBA
stated: "I'm opposed to any military strikes against Syria. I am very
disappointed in the Obama administration. It seems they have taken a
page from President Bush's playbook when we invaded Iraq looking for
WMDs. I call on all our representatives to vote no on the proposed
congressional Resolution for military strikes. We should stop arming
the Rebels as well, without our weapons and our encouragement this
civil war would have been prevented. Enough of wars."
Rev. David K. Farley, Pastor of Echo Park United Methodist Church, Los
Angeles said: "As a Christian and as a United Methodist Pastor I join
the leaders of the majority of Christian Denominations in this land in
calling upon the US congress to vote against military force in Syria.
A military strike in Syria is a false choice between bombing and
impunity. Only a political solution to the conflict in Syria will
end the suffering of its people. Our military involvement will only
further escalate an already brutal war and will in fact undermine the
prospect of negotiations to ensure a just and sustainable future for
the Syrians. Rather the U.S. should call for all parties to cease
all military activities in Syria and work urgently to de-escalate
the crisis, together with other actors in the region and beyond."
Former Mayor of Pasadena and a highly respected criminal defense
attorney William M. Paparian underlined: "No because it is in response
to a classic "false flag" operation. Always remember the Gulf of
Tonkin incident.
Professor Berj Boyajian (USC, Loyola and Pepperdine Law Schools)
noted: "No I don't. I would like to give the negotiation on the
Russian proposal a real chance to succeed. The benefit of waiting for
the Syrians to deliver the chemical arsenal (stock) outweighs the
damages of attacking Syria and then realizing that the negotiation
could have succeeded. After all the President said after consulting
General Dempsey 'there is no urgency in attacking Syria, it could be
tomorrow in a week or a month.'"
For two weeks, the world witnessed an international political
drama/comedy performed by neo-cons in Washington.
Some of them continue to remain hidden. Others such as U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry have unmasked themselves.
They threaten to bomb a foreign sovereign state like Syria under
the pretext of "bringing democracy," or "disabling weapons of mass
destruction" including chemical ones. But their real objectives, kept
under the cover of "punishing crimes against humanity" is to coerce
Syria to 'divorce' Russia and the East in general and submit to the
dictates of western financial oligarchy (oil and energy interests as
well as military industrial complex) that has long hijacked U.S.
foreign policy purely for self interests.
But his time around, the Neo-Cons are met with politically seasoned
and relatively better-informed populace that refuses to be bypassed.
http://www.armenianlife.com/2013/09/12/is-us-military-strike-against-syria-acceptable/
From: Baghdasarian