You might ask what being against a military strike might have to do with economics of abundance. And it is connected by the fact that our very threat of a strike is creating an exodus, creating refugees. This creates instability in the monetary world, and in the world of human economy. Persons, families, children, who are displaced, whether by war or economic or natural disasters, are not able to participate fully in a life that values each person, values their creativity, and invites opportunity for connections, sharing and forming the exchanges of life that are essential for survival in our world.
Please think a moment about what it would be like for you to have to gather a few essential belongings and leave your dwelling, with no sense of when you might return or whether you will survive a journey to what might seem more safe, but where there are no guarantees of shelter, food, water or even safety.
We must raise our voices in loud cries for peace!
Mr. President,
I firmly believe that a military strike against Syria is a strike against peace in the Middle East.
No strategic strike has proven to be so surgical that is does not have unintended consequences for innocent lives and communities.
In the fragile states of the Middle East, now is the time for the major nations of the world to agree together to dialogue with the major countries of the Middle East.
I do not believe that our countries integrity will be harmed if we stand down from military strike and condemn chemical warfare.
With President Assam saying that he did not have knowledge of the recent chemical attack, means that he has factions which are out of his control.
This is the time that he has good intentions, and not assume bad intentions.
Assuming that he has good intentions for his people, for the needs of his country is a vital step in opening dialogue.
Please consider that even the threat of an attack has increased the number of refugees fleeing the country. These refugees are placing enormous humanitarian pressures on our allies. And we are creating refugees, we are responsible for increasing the number of homeless families and children because of our stance.
I understand that you feel that you need to stand firm on having a response to the use of chemical weapons. But I think your response should not be war, but offer of aid and care of those who are harmed, along with a call for dialogue with how to best keep these weapons out of the hands of those who fail to consider the harm and only see these weapons as a means to winning or losing.
Sadly, these weapons, which we call weapons of mass destruction, exist because of our instinct to retaliate and seek so called victory instead of realizing that their use ends our worlds as we know it and in the end, those whom we might save are lost.
Please, find an alternative way of addressing the violation of the ban on chemical weapons. An attack using weapons will only worsen the tensions in the Middle East.
For years we have worked to broker a peace in the Middle East, but for our own reasons. Now is the time to seek peace, because it is essential for the life of the whole region, not for our needs.
