CRISIS IN SYRIA
President Obama Embraces Russian Proposal on Syria's Weapons
Recently the Syrian government used its chemical weapons to kill hundreds of their citizens, killing many innocent women and children. In response to their usage of chemical weapons, President Obama sought congressional approval of a US military attack in Syria. On Wednesday, September 4, 2013, a divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved an authorization of force against the Syrian regime. But before the House of Representatives could approve the strike, US Secretary of State John Kerry as well as the Russian government proposed that Syria should have international monitors take control of the Syrian government's chemical weapons.
This proposal would be great for an ideal world where countries do what is considered morally acceptable if not morally embraced. If the nation was willing to use chemical weapons on their own people, we must consider the possible consequences of US military action and international intervention in Syria. Ideally the nation would give up their weapons and we would dispose of them properly. The problem is that if the world were really ideal, would we have to take chemical weapons from the country in the first place? And considering how the world isn't ideal, are we prepared for resistance from the Syrian government (which may or may not come in a violent form)? Can we really trust the nation that receives the weapons to dispose of them properly? And if we can't and decide to do it ourselves, how we can we expect other nations to trust us if we couldn't trust them?
Think about it and tell your stance on the entire subject. What's better, US military strike, Russian proposal, other possible intervention(s), or perhaps no intervention at all...
No comments:
Post a Comment