An Argument To Attack Syria

President Bashar al-AssadBashar al-Assad, President of the Syrian government, has brutally bombed suburbs of Damascus (where rebel fighters are known to live) with lethal sarin gas killing approximately 1600 people, 40% of which were children.  This is an illegal attack using weapons of mass destruction.  UN (United Nations) inspectors have verified that sarin was used, and it is assumed that these bombs came in the form a missiles fired by the Syrian government.

President Obama has vowed to retaliate by striking military bases, rocket launchers, and command structures if Syria ever used gas to kill its citizens.  However, he's decided to get Congress's opinion on the matter before overriding them; that's assuming he makes the right decision, if the vote doesn't go his way.  But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

I do believe that it is wise to get Congress involved before committing our military to yet another conflict in the Middle East.  But, waiting until Congress reconvenes in over a week on September 9 seems risky.  Syria could move its weapons or attack again in that time.  The United States will be judged harshly for its non-action, if President Bashar al-Assad chooses to attack with chemical weapons again.  I find it odd that in the year 2013 that the United States government cannot hold a secure video conference with its Congress immediately.

But it's also my understanding that Congress has already approved military strikes against Syria if they ever used chemical weapons.  Obama has said this would not be an open-ended conflict; no boots on the ground.  So, I don't understand why Obama can't attack first and ask Congress later?

There's talk about using Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from cruisers to do the job.  But, that doesn't seem wise with Russia not totally buying into US intervention.  I understand that we have stealth bombers (B-2 for example) that could perform precision attacks.  Why wouldn't we use them instead?

No one wants to get involved in another extended conflict in the Middle East; not American, not Europe, and the UK (United Kingdom) has said as much.  We are all tired of the economic and human cost of these wars.  Syria knows this and is probably betting on it to get away with their immoral activities.  I think we should remind them there's a price to pay for slaughtering hundreds of non-combatants.  To put it bluntly, give Syria a good spanking.


this is an extremely difficult situation.
my heart aches for the Syrian people.
however America shouldn't always go in and aide these people.
truth is the aide does not go to the people in need.
I don't feel comfortable putting arms in the hands of insane people.
this is a subject that needs more thought. we need to look beyond the present and look at the big picture are we really helping these people or are we allowing crimes against innocent people to keep going on?
I don't know the answer to this.
right now I think we need to focus on our own country and become a stronger nation.
before we go and start another war that we don't belong in.


Assad acts like he did nothing, yet it's pretty obvious he gassed over a thousand people. I think we should at least respond. But, I'm not interested in sending troops or an extended war.

I just don't want to see any more of our troops in the Middle East.

We have much more pressing problems at home than to assist one side of a civil war in Syria. I say, "Do not attack Syria!"

We are horribly in debt!!
It's not that the Syrians don't need help. I just don't think we are the ones to help!!!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.