President Obama seeks approval from Congress to advance in
the attack on Syria.
The white house has declared that the Syrian government has
bombed innocent people in Syria at least twice; once in April, with a loss of
100 to 150 lives and again on August 21, 2013 with a death rate of an estimated
1,400.
With the end of the war in Iraq and the end of the Afghanistan
war approaching, the American people really aren’t too excited to be the only
super power looking to take a stand. NATO doesn’t exactly want to get involved,
so the only one of our allies that IS willing to help out is France….but can we
honestly count on them, considering the fact that they withdrew from the war
with Iraq, only little while after we arrived? BUT let’s just say we can….That’s
two against two, because Russia has a military base in Syria, so if we attack,
that will be us against them as well.
Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president said it best, Syria is a
keg of gunpowder. If we attack, those sparks will fly and WWIII will probably
be the explosion.
If Obama chooses not to attack, America would see him as a
weak leader and Syria would see America as weak, and Assad has already proven
to be a man of his own way. That opens up the possibility that, as Marine
General Anthony Zinni warned, Syria could attack Israel and/or Turkey, and if
that happens, the United States military would have to step in.
Either way Obama….You’re damned if you do; damned if you don’t.
I reeeeaaaaallly don't think its a good idea to go to war with Syria, but we're screwed either way.
ReplyDeleteI am not in favor of war, but it seems that now is a time to deal with crimes against humanity, even if elsewhere in the world. I am somewhat trepidatious, but I don't see anything positive coming from a spirit of isolationism. And your final sentence is dead on, especially in the field of politics: if Obama abstains, he'll be slammed for "being weak." If he proceeds with a strike, he'll be slammed for "going to war." There's no easy way out.
ReplyDelete