UN chief, Ban Ki-Moon[/caption]Carol Forsloff----Most people throughout the world are against the use of chemical weapons, especially governments using them against citizens in their own country. But most people worry “If you break it, you own it,” might be the consequences of any military action, as humanitarian individuals and groups are also concerned about the consequences of an expanding conflict in the Middle East.
The humanitarian approach to Syria remains as cloudy as any other issue in the world, given the stockpiles of chemical weapons owned by the Assad regime, the government seen by many nations as rogue in the relationship of how citizens have been treated, especially during the recent conflict.
As President Barack Obama offers strong appeals to the American public, and plans to address the nation about Syria in the early part of the week, there remains the everlasting question about little involvement expanding to greater involvement in what many interpret as another civil war.
The moral issue about watching innocent civilians, especially children, being attacked and dying in horrendous fashion, as has happened in recent history, with the German Nazi Reich, as the supreme example of the 20th century in the torture and killing of millions of Jews in many parts of the world. One by one nations refused to offer refuge to the Jews, and each nation either denied this group was being methodically killed and at risk in the advance of Adolph Hitler, or wondered whether joining the protest through war would bring a wider conflict.
Americans who know history recognize that the United States was an isolationist country and did not enter World War II until the “shot over the bow” from the Japanese had really happened, a shot that was far greater than that shot discussed for Syrian response. It meant sinking ships and killing hundreds on an island far from the continental US. And a foreign war that can expand is something older Americans know something about, while the youth have been raised to think about the needs of today and focus on self-realization as opposed to any form of what others label an altruistic intervention that could go wrong. In fact UN chief Ban Ki-Moon warns the world about the risks of US military strikes.
Humanitarian groups fall into different categories, and the response about conflicts such as Syria is different ethnically, nationally, and religiously, depending upon the incident. The present problem in Syria, however, puts people at loggerheads, as they debate the debate their greatest concern about limited strikes on Syria to end the use of chemical weapons may produce a wider response with the sides lining up in ways that could create a worldwide involvement in war. In other words the worry is as it is with most citizens around the world who are observing the Syrian conflict. Fareed Zhakaria relates it to the old adage, “If you break it, you own it.”underlining Obama's contradictions, which indeed resembles the worries of citizens around the world over what is the most humanitarian approach.