What Should The U.S do about Syria?


After President Obama announced his plans to take possible military action in Syria to congress, many Americans—myself included—wondered if another war is imminent.


It’s ominous to even think of, but if this is approved, what do we call going into another country and bombing them? Won’t there be retaliation?


And as many politicians and journalists have pointed out, this bends the U.S constitution. President Obama hasn’t assumed total power, as he has consulted congress, unlike many American presidents that came before him, but Syria isn’t posing a danger to the U.S.


Representative Scott Rigell (R-VA) wrote in a USA Today column:


“For the president to engage the U.S. military in Syria, when no direct threat to the United States exists, would violate the Constitution. The atrocities in Syria do not pose an imminent threat to our nation.”


Yet, it has been widely reported that the Assad regime has overstepped the “red line” President Obama spoke about when he warned them to quit using chemical weapons. (Although details and evidence are still a bit unclear.)




However, it is undeniable that what’s going on in Syria is heinous.


In 2011, a civil war broke out in Syria as the result of civilians gathering for protests against the government. According to Max Fisher of The Washington Post, “The government responded — there is no getting around this — like monsters.”


Syrians were displaced, murdered, tortured, and raped—and all of this is still happening.


President Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t want to sit around and do nothing while children are being hurt, especially with chemical weapons.


What do you think? Should the U.S stay out of Syria? Or does the U.S have an obligation to do something?




Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
  1. VictoriaC_19 posted on 09/04/2013 02:42 PM
    America should stay out of other countrys' affairs. There is no imminent threat to the US, so therefore, the US has no business intervening in their affairs. However, I think it's common knowledge that the U.S. will always involve itself in other countrys' affairs if there is some type of monetary interest at stake, which they always seem to disguise as an excuse to "advance democracy", LOL.
  2. trade0 posted on 07/14/2014 03:13 AM
    The role of a lacoste pas cher is—and

    never was—just about solving an information problem. It’s about providing

    meaning and satisfying emotional needs. These fundamental human needs have not

    changed. To the contrary as boutique lacoste

    experience information overload, there might be a tendency to gravitate

    toward what’s known and comforting. Sure, disruptive digital services explode

    and take over the world in an instant, but to go from being a popular service

    like Pinterest and Whatsapp to a boutique

    lacoste paris
    that commands a proper price premium is still a long road.
showing all comments