The Civil War in Syria

EminaMemic

5th hour

Rough Draft

The Civil War in Syria

The issue at hand is on the debate regarding the Civil War within Syria and the impacts that have been generated over opposing forces within the country. Barrack Obama’s speech is whether we should, as a nation, go into Syria, or stand back and watch from the side lines. Although it is clear the direction in which Obama is in support of, It still begs to ask the question, do we have any business meddling in other affairs due to our past history and what effects it had on the U.S. The United States should not go into war with Syria because it will cause several problems here and America is already going through enough. needs a stronger hook, state what problems specifically

The Syrian uprising launched on March 15, 2011 brought the country into a state of chaos. With president Al-Bashar Al-Assad leading his family’s power of rule since 1971 on one side and those opposed against his families rule on the other. The battle between the forces against Assad’s regime and those in favor of the Ba’ath government’s rule remain in an every constant struggle between each other. However certain nations have claimed that Assad did use biological weapons against his own people, although still not entirely conclusive. On September 14, 2003 Russia and the United States have announced an agreement in hopes of eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile by the end of 2014. With all the complexities Inthe issue, it allows for much flexibility in swaying either side.focus less on the background information and more on what specifically you are arguing

The unthinkable has happened in Syria where biological weapons were used against innocent civilians brought upon by the oppressive dictatorship of Bashar Al-Assad. The death count has reached over 100,000 lives, bearing no grudge for women or children. President Obama opens up his speech with quite the punch line, hitting home on many aspects of life. He used direct language and went straight to the point. He delivered his message with the surest attitude, appearing that this decision is ultimately right. Obama starts off his speech by saying,

“Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country,”

I suppose the 99,000 previous deaths due to the suspected use of chemical weapons on Assad weren’t as important as the deaths of the last 1000+ deaths. How can one say million have fled the country? Is that even possible and under what data is this conclusive? Seems to be a made up number to scare the public, and does a great job.

“The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.” There has been no conclusive proof linking Assad to the killings of those innocent civilian. Obama attempts to delve upon the atrocity, aiming at obtaining support from the people by depicting the terrible imagery among viewers to gain sympathy for his case.

“No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.”

This is true, but how does this link to the use of chemical weapons on innocent people to that of Assad or his regime? At add our allies England and Britain have disputed such claims and remain at bay.

“We know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed.”

If so, who are these people, where are their stories, where is the conclusive evidence and proof for such a statement and can be trusted? Obama seems to avoid the direct point in providing evidence for his claim by simply using second hand jargon, he said she said, for sympathy.

“If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.”

I don’t see the logic in this case. If Assad was responsiblefor the use of chemical weapons, why hasn’t he struck more than once? If he was developing these weapons he would have carried out a much larger scale of attack.

As you can see, things that are not always true are said by people constantly for support. Whether we choose to take action within Syria or sit back, I would still lay my conscience on intervening only on undeniable proof, so that we can spare ourselves as human beings and as a country, into a better outlook for the future. We are not the world’s police-men, but when necessary such measures are required. Viewing both angles of the fight is critical. The underlies are there, all that remains now is the proper attitude as a nation and as people deciding what is right. We must take a real approach before jumping into another frenzy of bloodshed and oppression. We do not want another Iraq, we do not want another war, so let’s be smart and take proper steps as all other countries are dong before crossing any lines we might regret in the future.great conclusion!

see common issues