4 votes

Exposing the fallacious "Humanitarian" argument for military action against Syria.

Our executive branch is currently using an entirely fallacious argument as justification for going to war with Syria. This flaw should be exposed as widely as possible since it undermines their whole "humanitarian" basis for starting another war.

The administration's primary logical argument (which they are constantly repeating) as a basis for military actions is essentially this:

The Syrian government used chemical weapons.
Something must be done.
The United States can't stand by and do nothing.
Therefore, we must take military action agains Syria

Even we assume for arguments sake that all the premises are true... the extreme weakness of this argument is nevertheless apparent. Clearly there are a wide range of actions that the United States can take which does NOT involve any military action whatsoever.

Indeed there are a number of actions which the US can take which are much more viable from a humanitarian perspective.

A simple example... how about instead of starting another war we try and work with the international community to try and promote peace talks to happen. Just simply proposing this as a viable alternative completely exposes their fundamental fallacy that military action must now be taken.

If their fundamentally flawed argument can get widely exposed to congress then it seems there is a good chance of the house voting no on military action... it undermines there entire "humanitarian" basis for going to war.

It seems clear that the best chance to get a NO vote is in the House... and it looks like the democrats are going to have to vote "yes" to military action by a large majority if it's going to pass. If this flawed "humanitarian" argument for war is undermined then it seems there is a much better chance for the democrats, in particular, to fail to get a large majority.... since surely this will be their primary argument for voting yes on military intervention.

It actually is quite insane that our government is using this weak of an argument as their primary reason for starting another war!

I propose that a good strategy to try and prevent this war is to send letters to all our representatives exposing the extreme weakness of this particular fundamentally flawed "humanitarian" argument for war.

Here is a possible example:


SUBJECT: Vote NO on military authorization in Syria

I write to you as a constituent to urge you to vote no on authorizing the use of military force in Syria. Starting another war is a serious matter and there are clearly other options the US government can do in response to the Syrian crisis besides starting another military intervention.

The use of chemical weapons in Syria, regardless who used them, is awful. Surely there are some things that the US government can do, however, I do not believe that these attacks should justify military intervention. There is a clear risk that this proposed intervention will make the humanitarian situation worse and could further destabilize the region.

In the more than two and a half years since the conflict in Syria began, more than 100,000 people have been killed. Nearly two million Syrians are now refugees and more than 6.8 million urgently need humanitarian aid.

I am not claiming that the US government should do nothing. But, military intervention may only serve to prolong the suffering of Syria's people and it is clearly NOT the only option available. I urge you to vote no on authorizing military intervention in Syria and instead look for a more humanitarian solution that does not involve starting another war.

Thank you.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Anyone notice

the word "terrorism" has been dropped from the conversation?

To get the dems on board its easy:

Mr. President, how many more times are you going to come before congress asking to bomb the middle east?