Just a Tad Bit of Sympathy on Top

            In the case you have yet to be interpellated in supporting the United States use of drones to bomb the Syrian government, it’s not too late.  Because this scenario is so extreme, in the sense that the United States might violate the United Nation Charter, it’s important to make sure everyone is on board with their ideology: there’s simply no room for stranglers.  Therefore, the United States, or more-so their ideological state apparatus of the New York Times, have chosen to utilize another tactic to get the remaining people on board to support the cause.  The first ploy to try to get people to support was reasoning.  The justification was that the Syrian government (although it’s no proof they’re the guilty party) broke United Nations Charter by utilizing chemical warfare and deserves to be punished.  The counter hegemonic logic I’m presenting, best articulated by The Real News, is that two wrongs don’t make a right.  The United States, too, would be in violation of the United Nations Charter should that engage in warfare with Syria, without approval from the United Nation Security Council.  The second ploy would appear to be sympathy.       

            Through the New York Times, the article presented focused on the number of refugees created as a result of this warfare in Syria between the rebels and the government.  According to the United Nations refugee agency, the number of people looking to relocate is roughly 150,000 people.  At this point, no nation can hold or desires to hold that many people at this one time.  Such panic have led the people to disperse everywhere, from neighboring countries to Europe to the United States.  Currently neighboring nations have closed off their borders to Syria, as they have met their fill.  In light of that, the United States is trying to take as many in as possible, but trying to evade letting terrorists come in with the deserving refugees.  As such, the screening process for the United States is much more stringent and seems to have a lot of people on hold.  In an attempt to combat this slow intake in the beginning, the U.S. has put forth a plan to allow 130,000 refugees the ability to come in within the next two years (U.N. Calls).

            Where does this leave us as citizens of a nation planning to intake 130,000 Syrians, who are seeing so many people uprooted from their neighborhoods as the result of a dangerous war?  We’re left to feel nothing but sadness and sympathy for so many people.  We would all hate to be uprooted from our communities and can certainly understand and/or relate to the struggles of these people.  Unfortunately though, it doesn’t seem like feeling sad is supposed to be the desired effect.  Yes, we’re supposed to be saddened, but we’re also supposed to be angry.  We’re supposed to desire that this nation get what’s coming for them.  We’re supposed to support the United States’ logic to use drones to harm the government of Syria.

            Unfortunately, we’re still in the same place that we were in with the other two blogs.  The United States still doesn’t have proper approval to impose war on Syria, nor do we know who the responsible party is.  Hence, pursuing war or attacking simply because we feel an emotion for those affected by the war only make us just as bad. 

Blog Disclaimer:

            As a disclaimer, it’s important to note that I love America.  I’m not anti-America, nor am I anti Syria.  I strongly hope and desire justice for those who are at fault for hurting so many Syrians.  I sincerely feel for their struggles and the lived realities they are forced to deal with daily.  The issue that I wanted to present though is the power of one story and the issue of the discourse the United States/ The New York Times is trying to present.  Whereas The Real News doesn’t mind calling out the United States government for possibly breaking international laws, The New York Times chooses to skirt the issue.  Although they presented an article stating that the United States were going to attack Syria, they failed to frame the story as it being against international law.  As a result, the articles that they release following the air strike only garners support for the actions of the United States, instead of holding them accountable.  Hence, people are left believing that the United States is fighting the “Good Fight,” instead of the unlawful one.