EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA

August 29, 2013


The Eagle-Tribune

---- — To the editor:

Although we are concerned that using chemical weapons raised the level of violence in Syria, we don’t believe that American military intervention, especially aerial bombing, will fix anything. It is more important to expand diplomatic efforts and UN forces to stop the inflow of arms and to take care of the many civilian refugees already affected.

It would cost the U.S. taxpayers and soldiers less, financially and morally, to do the right thing, to avoid war.

There have been atrocities by both the government and the rebels. There is not conclusive proof that it was the government, and not the rebels, that used chemical weapons. Besides, government use of chemical weapons would be a flimsy reason to use war methods that would harm many, many more civilians.

As in Vietnam and Iraq, the president is threatening to attack a country without declaring war, which would require the approval of Congress. Doing this again would be a repeated abuse of the Constitution, which was written to prevent such a rash action.

Using military force might satisfy the urge to help the people of Syria, but in reality it would harm them more. Do try to help them, but not with military force.

Brian Quirk


Merrimack Valley People For Peace