My view for and against the war in Syria: lots of research.

One of my professors had us do a pro and con list for the War in Syria that tonight the President of the USA, Obama, will be addressing publicly. Below is my views:

Three statements for it:
a. Syria’s uses of chemical weapons of mass destruction are a cause of great concern that could potentially start a massive world war 3. 
b. From the US Media’s perspective, this military intervention is not a full-fledged war on Syria, or a humanitarian strike, but rather to hold the president of Syria accountable for his use of alleged chemical weapons on innocent people.
c. Over the past two decades, the US has gone and helped many other countries who were in need, and Syria is just one of those countries who is in grave danger of loosing more innocent people because their president has allegedly used chemical weapons on them, killing thousands of people. We need to help make sure this doesn’t happen again.

Three statements against:
a. A major concern of the global media, especially in the UK, is that going into war, or at least having limited military interaction, with Syria, will end up having the same result as the Iraq war; where no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
b. From a global media perspective, the military intervention into Syria would cause more harm than good because then Syria will just start thinking we are attacking them, rather than trying to stop the use of chemical weapons.
c. Whatever the case may be, putting troops into Syria will just add to the death toll in this already high-casualty civil war of over 100,000 people. Is it worth having more people die, or can we just settle this like human beings without going into war.

My statement against military intervention:

After reading a lot about the civil war in Syria, it has come of great concern that this “military intervention” will not be as limited as President Obama has assured it to be. In his campaign, he had promised to stop all of the wars currently going on and bring the troops home. There are still troops over seas. A major concern of the global media, especially in the UK, is that going into war, or at least having limited military interaction, with Syria, will end up having the same result as the Iraq war; where no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

My statement against for military intervention:

The civil war in Syria has been going on for a while, and although it was on the global media’s radar, it wasn’t of great concern globally until the remark that the president of Syria was allegedly using chemical weapons on innocent people. President Obama has assured that the military intervention would be limited, and although the prime minister of Britain was in support of Obama, the rest of the UK was not. From the US Media’s perspective, this military intervention is not a full-fledged war on Syria, or a humanitarian strike, but rather to hold the president of Syria accountable for his use of alleged chemical weapons on innocent people. The president of Syria should be held accountable for his actions and punished accordingly; a statement that has been agreed upon by most.

 

Make sure to watch President Obama tonight on TV for the latest news on what critics are calling the “Syria Conflict.” Since technically, it isn’t a war, but an intervention.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s