A point, counter-point article on Syria offers a well-rounded take on the issue of whether or not the U.S. should attack this nation at war. What do you think we should do?
Is it smart for the U.S. to stand alone once again in regards to attacking a Middle Eastern country? What does it say about the U.S. if we don't attack? What are our reasons for attacking in the first place? Do we have a responsibility to respond to the horrible events taking place in Syria, or is something that can only be handled within the United Nations? What is your opinion on this crisis?
I agree that if we do not do anything and just turn our heads the other way, that Bashar Assad will continue to use the chemical weapons, and that other groups and countries will believe that they can use them too. If we don’t act we are practically saying that the international law against chemical weapons doesn’t apply to Syria, so it doesn’t apply anywhere else. However I think that we should not just immediately send a direct attack. We should try every peaceful way possible first because most people do not want to start another war after we have already been fighting one in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade. If they don’t give up their chemical weapons, then I think a strike is necessary.
ReplyDelete-caitlin reisen
I think that even though they are using chemical weapons that it's not our job to do anything about. I mean yeah it is illegal and they should be stopped but it's not just our job to do that. And to send an attack right away isn't right because missiles could kill a lot of innocent people that are just around there. We are trying to pull our troops out of the other wars we are in but now we want to get in to another one right away. It just isn't the right thing to do at the moment.
ReplyDelete-Austin Bauldry