by MYKHAIL L. ALEXANDER
Syria is currently undergoing a traumatic hardship in the form of war. According to President Barack Obama, the Syrian leadership is using what he calls an “unspoken rule of war” by using chemical weapons which are killing many innocent children, women, and men. Obama doesn’t agree with anything that is currently happening in Syria and he wants to take action and fight for the lives of the Syrian people, but the question is should he. Should our president send hundreds of thousands of American troops to defend the Syrian country? Should we risk our troops dying slow, painful deaths due to chemical weapons to save the Syrian people? Or should we sit and watch them die and say that it’s none of our concern? Personally, I wouldn’t want to interfere with anybody else’s problems. Yes, that may be inhumane and selfish, but why risk the lives of thousands of Americans? Not only that, but the Syrian government could also use chemical weapons against our citizens in retaliation for us sending troops to their war. Obama wants to play the hero. Okay, that’s fine. You go out there and fight that war. You go out there to Syria leave your two daughters and wife at home. You tell them before you leave that there’s a possibility that you will die a slow, painful death from chemical weapons, but had no choice because you, the leader, chose to send your people to a war that has nothing to do with the United States of America. But since American is captain-save-a-country we couldn’t just leave it alone. Our country along with Syria has come to an agreement of some sort. As long as all the chemical weapons are destroyed we won’t attack the people of Syria. I guess something is better than nothing…
Syria is currently undergoing a traumatic hardship in the form of war. According to President Barack Obama, the Syrian leadership is using what he calls an “unspoken rule of war” by using chemical weapons which are killing many innocent children, women, and men. Obama doesn’t agree with anything that is currently happening in Syria and he wants to take action and fight for the lives of the Syrian people, but the question is should he. Should our president send hundreds of thousands of American troops to defend the Syrian country? Should we risk our troops dying slow, painful deaths due to chemical weapons to save the Syrian people? Or should we sit and watch them die and say that it’s none of our concern? Personally, I wouldn’t want to interfere with anybody else’s problems. Yes, that may be inhumane and selfish, but why risk the lives of thousands of Americans? Not only that, but the Syrian government could also use chemical weapons against our citizens in retaliation for us sending troops to their war. Obama wants to play the hero. Okay, that’s fine. You go out there and fight that war. You go out there to Syria leave your two daughters and wife at home. You tell them before you leave that there’s a possibility that you will die a slow, painful death from chemical weapons, but had no choice because you, the leader, chose to send your people to a war that has nothing to do with the United States of America. But since American is captain-save-a-country we couldn’t just leave it alone. Our country along with Syria has come to an agreement of some sort. As long as all the chemical weapons are destroyed we won’t attack the people of Syria. I guess something is better than nothing…