Should the United States and other Western powers (i.e., Britain, France, etc.) undertake a military action in Syria, bypassing the United Nations Security Council in doing so?
Comments
9 responses to “”
-
No to military action on Syria or anywhere else 🙂
Bless ALL 🙂-
And YES to World Peace 🙂
Bless ALL 🙂
-
And, Yes to Worlds of Worlds’ Peace 🙂 Hi Thanks for all your light Whew Love it 🙂
-
Hi 🙂 The Law of Gratitude is Given 🙂
-
Wow 🙂
-
-
-
-
-
Sie sollten eine Lösung des Friedens finden
-
I say no. Let the United Nations Security Council do
something. Not only is it not one nation’s responsibility to undertake war
ever, and, especially alone, but it is also all life’s responsibility to come
forth and create a love network that actually does work. Let the Council, the
United Nations ensure the safety of every human everywhere, not just Syria, but
everywhere on this planet. We impact all
life with our decision to act with response not reaction. We are not the caretakers of all on this
planet, as Americans, but, we need a neutral party, the United Nations to do its
job. We are humankind, and desire all
humans to be granted certain rights, like breath. That’s what we’re talking about here,
breath. But, America is not the savior
of all on the planet. To come to bomb
Syria for the purpose of saving Syria is to come in fear. Let the neutral party, the Council, the
United Nations approach Syria in love.
Let them ask why they feel compelled to murder their own species. Why would we engage, introduce war, when we
are trying to maintain peace? Seems like
a no brainer to me. Let all life come
forth, not one nation. -
No!
-
NO, why else was the united nations formed ? it’s main purpose is to maintain peace and unity in the world. Yet the nations claiming to be free and democratic are the ones who
mostly use the veto to obstruct the democratic process .why?
Leave a Reply