Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

No easy answers to Syria situation

September 14, 2013
The Inter-Mountain

Editor:

I have been paying very close attention to the Syrian conflict. I have been talking to people. I have been debating with the people I bounce things off of. I feel I am about to shoot myself in the foot, so to speak.

First, I am not for war. I have said nothing about Syria because I hadn't decided yet. I was torn.

On one hand I do not think that the USA should be the police in the world. I have decided to say what I believe and if it angers people so be it. In my mind that opens up debate and anyone is allowed to have an opinion and they do not have to agree with what I am about to say.

I think that the USA must strike. I came to this conclusion after thinking back to Hitler. I do not believe that we can let the use of chemical weapons stand. Watching the hearings I found myself thinking that we can not stand by. Something must be done.

I think that in the end Congress will give the authorization. I commend the President for asking Congress to vote on this. He did not have to under the War Powers Act.

I will also say I do have questions and I hope that they will be answered. What happens if it gets worse as I am sure it will? I would hope that the president would come back to Congress before sending in troops. I do not see a way out.

On the other hand I do not see how we can stand by and do nothing, seeing as how we are proud to be a superpower in the world. This goes back to World War I and World War II. I agree that, yes, Barack Obama drew a red line. I would say that the world and our own Congress did as well. Over 130 nations signed and agreed that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime. Our own Congress signed a Syrian resolution saying the same thing.

I hope that we will be able to come to an agreement with Assad with the aid of Russia. I am skeptical about this due to the fact that Russia is already blocking in the UN. I watched the president's address and I think there is a strong possibility that we will be involved in a strike. All eyes are on America now.

President Barack Obama says that the military is to stay in its current position and will respond if an agreement isn't reached. I have learned in studying politics that there are meanings in every word a president says. Read into that one as you will but what I am hearing is that Assad is going to do what he says or we are going to hit him.

I wondered to myself if the entire drum beat from the start up to taking it to Congress was a way for the administration to pressure Assad and Russia into trying to reach an agreement. Just an idea.

If my idea is true, does that mean that if an agreement does not happen we are hitting them without the president calling on Congress to vote? Will we wake up to hear that we have carried out a limited strike? Do we really trust Russia (who is already blocking things in the UN)? Do we trust Assad? Is this a plan to be able to say that the administration tried diplomacy but we had to hit them because they didn't comply?

It is an interesting situation. A big game of chess, so to speak. One that all Americans should be paying attention to. Any time our military may be committed in any way every American should pay very close attention.

You should also contact your representatives with your opinions. These are serious issues and we speak through the people's representatives.

Stephanie J. Shank

Elkins

 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web