Joint Action Necessary to Subdue Syria Reviewed by Momizat on . Written by Bailey Ochs & Media by Fallyn Paruleski Much of the news coverage recently has centered on the attack in Damascus, Syria and the action that will Written by Bailey Ochs & Media by Fallyn Paruleski Much of the news coverage recently has centered on the attack in Damascus, Syria and the action that will Rating:
You Are Here: Home » Opinion » Joint Action Necessary to Subdue Syria

Joint Action Necessary to Subdue Syria

Written by Bailey Ochs & Media by Fallyn Paruleski

Much of the news coverage recently has centered on the attack in Damascus, Syria and the action that will be taken by other nations as a result of the violence. The spotlight has been on President Barack Obama as he has been traveling, making speeches, and trying to gain support to take action against Syria. He says the world needs to know that no one can simply get away with breaking “international norms.”

In his address in St. Petersburg, Russia, Obama called the United States of America the most powerful country in the world more than once. Partially because of this belief, he thinks that the best action to take is an American strike on Syria. Obama has been quoted saying, he would rather strike with the blessing of the United Nations, but will do what is necessary to protect his people and to protect the world. Those who agree with him think that something must be done to prevent future use of chemical weapons. Those who disagree with him think that a strike will just make the situation in Syria worse or get the U.S. involved in another overseas war unnecessarily. Whether the President will be able to get the support of Congress and the American people is still to be determined.

Media from http://www.npr.org/2013/09/07/219768126/syria-puts-obamas-multilateralist-philosophy-to-the-test

Media from http://www.npr.org/2013/09/07/219768126/syria-puts-obamas-multilateralist-philosophy-to-the-test

I believe the international “rule” is that no one is allowed to use chemical weapons and someone (whether it be Syrian President Assad or rebels trying to overthrow his government) has used them anyway, something must be done. Do I think that this “something” should be an American attack in Syria? Not necessarily. I am not aspiring to be in politics because I don’t want to have to make these types of decisions. An attack only means more death, retaliation, more hate, more unrest. I am not sure what action should be taken, what consequence should take place for using chemical weapons. But there should be one. If nothing is done, others can take advantage of the system and, as Obama said in his address, “That’s not the world that we want to live in.” I just don’t think that America should act alone if many other countries are not on board and make more enemies trying to be the hero. At the same time, the people who were attacked are probably wishing for a hero. I would hope that the United Nations would be able to come to an agreement on a consequence for this attack without more people having to die. Justice must be upheld if there is going to be any sense of right and wrong in the world. But without knowing for sure who is to blame for this crime, I don’t think a military attack is the best answer. But like I said, there is a reason that I am not in a position to make these kinds of decisions. As President Obama said, “There are times where we have to make hard choices, if you are going to stand up for the things we care about.”

To read or hear more about this subject, check out these links:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24016844

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Comment

                                                                       © 2017 Powered By GvilleDM

Scroll to top