"It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread or use of deadly chemical [gas] weapons," said Pres. Trump. His outrage was seconded by the UK and France.

The combined military might of the triple alliance crashed down like a wrecking ball on Syrian President Assad for his use of deadly gas. Puzzling.

During Syria's eight-year civil war an estimated 500,000 people were killed. Of these, about 2,500 were dispatched by gas. That's one-half of one percent. Apparently, it's okay to be killed by bombs and bullets, but gas is a no-no.

The stats raise suspicions that the stated reason for attacking Syria is packed with more blarney than can be found in Ireland's famed town.

First, what is a weapon of mass destruction (WMD)? The term was first coined in 1937, referring to the aerial bombardment of Guernica. Today, its use has broadened to include any weapon that kills or harms significant numbers of people and causes widespread damage to property.

These bad boys include gas, biological agents, radioactive weapons and chemical weapons.

Gas and biological agents are not weapons of mass destruction. Their use in WW I and WW II proved to be impracticable. Depending on the vagaries of wind and weather, they could and did backfire. They were seldom used, not because of humanitarian considerations but because they could not be controlled.

Further, neither gas nor bioagents scatter body parts or level cities. Hardly ideal for a WMD.

What about nuclear weapons? That's a qualified, yes. But their use would invite a response in kind. And any ground seized would be uninhabitable. So it is in the interest of all combatants not to employ this unusable WMD.

Last, do chemical weapons qualify as a WMD? A chemical weapon uses the explosive force released by the chemical reaction in a firecracker, or a 2,000-pound block-buster bomb. It is the only WMD.

Its use is independent of the weather, can be precisely targeted, and causes large-scale death, injuries and property damage. Poison gas and germ warfare are pop shooters compared to explosives.

In retaliation for Assad's presumed gas attacks that killed comparatively few, maimed no one, and did zero property damage, Pres. Trump unleashed a torrent of 105 Tomahawk missiles, accompanied with intensive bombings by the UK and France. Something like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. But this show of force had a purpose.

It was an intimidating prelude to a heavyweight bout between the Tomahawk and Russia's top-of-the-line anti-missile system, the S-400. (The military loves a good fight.)

Tomahawk's travel at 550 mph at altitudes as low as 50 feet. They follow the lay of the land, going up and down and swerving left or right. It's a hard target.

In the other corner is the Russian S-400. It can target dozens of enemy aircraft simultaneously at ranges of up to 250 miles. "If it is one Tomahawk versus one S-400, then the S-400 will have a very good chance of intercepting it," said Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute.

But the US planned to overcome the impressive capabilities of the S-400 by firing an overwhelming number of Tomahawks.

So who won? The Ruskies said they shot down 71 of the missiles. Plausible. The US claimed that all the missiles hit their targets. That's a Pinocchio.

What is known is that Tomahawks cost $1.9 million per bang. Multiply that by 105. That's $200 million taxpayer dollars. Was the cost of airmailing 50 tons of high explosives for the Syrian strike worth it?

How about lives lost?

Tomahawks are loaded with a half-a-ton of high explosives, a devastating punch. It is possible that the pounding by the US, UK, and France approached the number of fatalities caused by all the gas attacks? Was it worth the cost in lives?

Also puzzling was the targeting of supposed storage and manufacturing facilities of poison gas with high explosives. Unthinkable! Bombing would cause billowing clouds of noxious fumes to drift over populated areas, causing enormous casualties. Another Pinocchio.

The cover story for the bombs away on Syria was "to prevent and deter the spread or use of deadly chemical [gas] weapons." Gas fatalities in the Syria civil war were a rarity, about 1 in every 200 deaths. A third Pinocchio.

Syria is 7,000-miles from the US, UK, or France. It poses no conceivable military or economic threat to the aggressors. The real "why" behind the attack is yet to be disclosed.

The pity is that Pres. Trump could have honored his campaign pledge and extricated the US from the Middle East and its interminable wars. Instead, he chose to continue the conflicts, and the occupation is now approaching its third decade.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins, New Milford, PA

Farm Women United (FWU), an advocacy group for family farmers, has been fielding emails and telephone calls from farmers who are struggling to make ends meet and feel like they cannot go on. Finding resources to help these farmers has been a challenge. In New York, Farm Net can help farmers seek refinancing options and get extensions from creditors. Their contact information is easily found on their website.

That is not necessarily so with Pennsylvania. In a conversation about dairy farmers' current mental health crisis from the long-term low milk prices, Jayne Sebright, Executive Director of the Center for Dairy Excellence, told FWU's board of directors that the Center has information on their website for Crisis Intervention. A recent search on their website indicated that the information was not easily found. After entering "crisis intervention" in the search box, a county by county list appeared in Adobe format with websites that you can click on to pull up information. After clicking on some of the links, FWU found that some of them were not working. How can farmers get help at a time of extreme crisis when they need it and cannot get it?

FWU has made an extensive list of Crisis Intervention Hotlines on the Farm Women United website www.farmwomenunited.org under the heading "Crisis Intervention Hotlines." There you will find several states listed along with the National Suicide Hotline.

The help that farmers really need is to get an Emergency $20/cwt. floor price for milk used for manufacturing. That would help to ease the minds of many hardworking men and women across our country who are at heightened risk of suicide because of these criminal, man-made low milk prices that need to be corrected by the federal government immediately.

Call your Senators and Representative and demand that they immediately support legislation that would give family farms a chance to survive with a fair milk price that allows farmers to cover what it costs to produce the milk on the farm before one more farmer commits suicide over these low milk prices.

That contact information can be found on our website also.

Sincerely,

Tina Carlin, Laceyville, PA
Executive Director, Farm Women United

Pennsylvania is home to approximately 130 lakes as well as countless smaller lakes and ponds. Once the snows have departed and the ice has thawed, the waterfowl arrive to enjoy their summers and to nurture their families. I live on a small lake and the birds have arrived. Of course, it is always fun to watch the geese and ducks up close. One way to attract them is to feed them. So, do I grab my bag of stale bread and popcorn and head outdoors to make friends? Not so fast!

One would think that providing food for ducks and geese at a park or by the shore would make them healthier. False! Waterfowl who eat people food often suffer from poor nutrition. In natural settings, waterfowl seek and feed on a variety of nutritious foods like aquatic plants, natural grains, and invertebrates, such as grasshoppers, beetles, worms, and slugs. Many of the items commonly used to feed waterfowl (bread, corn, popcorn, etc.) are low in protein and are very poor substitutes for natural foods. Ducks and geese are able to find natural foods all by themselves, as they have for the last 50 million years. At artificial feeding sites, competition for each scrap or kernel is high. Some ducks and geese – usually the youngest – are unable to compete for handouts and, hence, they can starve. Visible symptoms of poor nutrition and advanced stages of starvation are seen at artificial feeding sites. For example, waterfowl may have drooping wings or may lose their ability to fly.

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, most waterfowl die-offs in the past decade have involved artificial feeding by homo sapiens. Example: 2,000 mallards and black ducks were killed in an outbreak of Duck Virus Enteritis in Central New York. In Cheektowaga, NY, hundreds of ducks died due to an outbreak of Avian Botulism at a feeding site. The town wisely passed a local ordinance to prohibit the feeding of waterfowl. An added bonus: rat populations that got fat by feeding on waterfowl handouts have since declined. In some cases, diseases transmitted by waterfowl can affect humans. In Skaneateles, NY, swimmers contracted Swimmer's Itch, caused by a parasite that was emitted from the feces of ducks and geese attracted to artificial feeding at the town park. In West Haven, Connecticut, 30 swans died from starvation at an artificial feeding site during the harsh winter of 93-94. Meanwhile, over 800 swans survived nearby on natural food. Excess nutrients in ponds caused by unnatural numbers of waterfowl droppings can result in water-quality problems such as summer algae blooms. And where waterfowl congregate to feed, E. coli bacterial counts can swell to levels that make the water unsanitary and unsuitable for swimming.

Feeding by humans alters normal migration patterns of waterfowl by shortening or even eliminating them. These birds, reluctant to leave in the winter, may not survive sudden cold. If the artificial feeding is stopped in time, ducks and geese can quickly adapt to finding natural foods and will follow their companions south.

If you want to see the birds up close, you may have to use binoculars. They do not need your 3-week-old Pepperidge Farm cinnamon bread. By feeding them unnaturally for your entertainment, you are selfishly jeopardizing their well-being. Keep our lakes and waterfowl healthy.

Sincerely,

Ron Gasbarro, New Milford, PA