We write to you today as two young Americans who believe that striking Syria will lead to a never-ending war that will wipe out our generation’s future. But we write to you filled with hope. For years We, The People of the United States of America have been divided by bitter partisanship but today we stand united in transpartisanopposition to striking Syria. Even radical neoconservatives like John Bolton and Glenn Beck agree with Jon Stewart and Pope Francis that America must not strike Syria.

According to the most recent polls, We, The People are screaming at the top of our lungs: Keep our Bombs Off Syria! If the US government decides to strike Syria in spite of the wishes of over 200 million Americans, Barack Obama and every single member of Congress who votes ‘yes’ will be sending Tomahawk missiles into the hearts of the vast majority of Americans who oppose the strike. We demand that our government respects our wishes over the desires of lobbyists for Israel and the military-industrial complex.If you oppose strikes on Syria, you must act now! Before you read the rest of this article, scroll to the bottom for telephone numbers of the congresspeople you must contact immediately.

The "Humanitarian Intervention" Myth

It is despicable to call this a "humanitarian" mission. Initiating another American conflict in the Middle East is sadomasochistic at best. If the US government truly cared about the people of Syria, would they have stood by while 100,000 people died during the first 2 years of the civil war? Why are "chemical weapons" killing 1400 people so different from guns and bombs killing nearly 10 times that many people during the first stretch of the war?

If the US government actually cared about the ethical despicability of "chemical weaponry" then:

The only truly "humanitarian intervention" must be backed by international law and be targeted at a peaceful, diplomatic, political resolution to the Syrian Civil War. We do not support the Assad regime’s violence, but we refuse to get behind an illegal and illogical war. America must act in unison with our allies and respect the international community. The European Union supports a "strong" response to the Assad regime but has implored the US to hold off on strikes until the UN weapons inspectors’ release test results to prove Assad is responsible for the chemical attack. At the least the US should respect the wishes of the international community.

The "No Boots on the Ground" Myth

Striking Syria is the first step to an all-out war. Don’t believe us? Here’s the proof:

Secretary of State John Kerry has publicly stated that there is no "desire to have boots on the ground" except "in the event Syria implode[s]." Nearlyeveryopponent of the strikes, from military analysts to congresspeople, believes that these strikes could cause Syria to ‘implode,’ or at the least, fail to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again.

Kerry’s naïve yet arrogant assessment of the situation amounts to "Syrian Civil War + American Tomahawk Cruise Missiles = Peaceful Transition to Functional Democracy in the Near Future." We counter his mathematics with our own: "Libyan Civil War + Tomahawks = ‘Dysfunctional’ Government Incapable of Addressing Violence." Here’s another equation: "All-Out Invasion + Iraq and Afghanistan = Hundreds of Thousands of Casualties and Over a Trillion in Debt." Either Secretary Kerry and his fellow warmongers learned math in the failing schools that have been underfunded because of wasteful military adventurism, or they are lying to us about the probability of sending American bodies to Syria.

Here’s a hint: They’re lying. We already have CIA boots on the ground and the Pentagon is preparing to take over in a two-pronged strategy striking the Syrian Army and arming the rebels. The war has been fought covertly for months and the US military is preparing to ramp it up despite Kerry’s Newspeak.

A Bloody Red Line in the Sand

We will reiterate: striking Syria is the first step to an all-out American invasion. Even if the Obama administration does not "intend" to put boots on the ground, they have not offered satisfactory answers to the following questions: What would put boots on the ground? What if Assad uses chemical weapons again? Would that justify deploying American troops? Assad could easily "respond with ‘a vicious offensive’ against" both rebels and innocent civilians. If Obama is worried about "losing his credibility" on this "red line," how will he react to explicit, lethal defiance by the Assad regime? How might he respond to acts of war erroneously attributed to the Assad regime?

What if the strikes create instability within Syria and the regime loses track of a few chemical weapons? Kerry claims that "boots on the ground" might be necessary if "there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into" the wrong hands. What if a video mysteriously shows up on the Internet threatening to unleash the stolen chemical weapons on American or Israeli soil? Because Kerry says that we might intervene further if it was "clearly in the interest of our allies" we should believe that Syrian instability post-strikes would result in the escalation of America’s involvement in the war.

The Obama administration is setting the bait for Syria to lash out at American troops or allies. As soon as an American is killed or an embassy is attacked the government will claim the authority to escalate our involvement in Syria.

Follow the Money (and the Lobbyists!)

We must heed the warning of President Eisenhower, a 5-star general and war hero himself, and "guard against the…military-industrial complex." Who has the most to gain from an American war in Syria? Defense contractors and Israel. The preliminary vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reveals all: those who voted for the strike received 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than those against it. Not to mention the fact that Raytheon – whose Tomahawk cruise missiles will be in very high demand should a military intervention of any scale occur – saw its stock jump 50% this week to an all-time high as the drumbeat for war intensified. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International – these companies have spent over $1 million in campaign contributions to the 17 members of Congress comprising the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the politicians who have already supported strikes. A full-fledged war translates to record-breaking profits for all of these companies. In addition to these corporate interests, an extremely powerful pro-war lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is sending at least 250 leaders, activists, and lobbyists to convince Congress to ignore the will of the American people and strike Syria.

Power to The People! The People want Peace!

AIPAC is incredibly powerful but We, The People of The United States of America, are infinitely more powerful when we act together by taking the following steps immediately and continuously! Demand that the men and women who represent us in Congress fight for better, smarter solutions. Be relentless in your charge against another war. Together we can be louder, tougher, and stronger than the warmongers who think that their deep pockets can rope us into an international conflict of horrific proportions. Countless lives depend on it – including our own.