Archived Story

I support U.S. action against Syria

Published 12:46pm Saturday, September 7, 2013

Imagine that seven years from now life in America becomes unforgettably grim. Let’s say the climate takes a turn for the worse and crops fail on a horrific scale. Food shortages become commonplace, along with riots as people struggle to survive.

There are even loud calls for the nation’s leaders to step down and allow new ones to find or enact solutions. Not surprisingly, no one moves.

Further, to quell the fighting in one instance, military drones are called in against Americans, killing hundreds, if not thousands of people. If you lived in another part of the world, such as Perth, Australia or Bogata, Columbia, you might be fascinated by television and Internet coverage, but would you care? Perhaps not, especially if your belly remained full.

Then suppose the leader of your nation says that in spite of all diplomacy and negotiations, peaceful means aren’t working. The drone attack means it’s time to call in the big guns to prevent the U.S. government from continuing its abhorrent behavior.

Again, you might say, “So what? They’re not my problem.”

But the troubles of one country or two have a nasty way of spreading in spite of isolationism. World War I comes immediately to my mind and look what followed: World War II and a Holocaust.

With those events in my mind, I’m supporting President Barack Obama’s call for a limited military strike against Syria – more specifically against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his militant supporters.

For America to do nothing will foster more trouble. It would further show the world we – especially Congress – have no respect for the office of the president, and also later condemn us as a nation for not preventing further tragedy, particularly against children.

I don’t want that on my conscience. Do you?




  • happycamper

    This situation is a real moral dilemma. I can certainly understand and empathize with those who feel that we’ve had enough of Middle East wars lately. I’m weary of it, too. However, I feel that … assuming the facts laid out by the President and Sec. Kerry are correct … we really DO have a moral obligation to take a stand. They’re saying (though they can’t guarantee) a “limited” strike aimed at hampering Aasad’s ability to further use chemical weapons and to let him know that his actions DO have consequences. At some point, we simply have to put some trust in those who have the facts. I realize that line of thought has gotten us in trouble before, but I simple don’t believe the administration would risk the same mistake. I disagree with almost EVERYTHING put forth as policy by President Obama, but on this issue, I believe he’s making the right case.

    Suggest Removal

  • chilimac72

    Pick you side my friend, shall we support those running the country that we believe are using WMD (uh oh, there they are again) or shall we support the rebels which are Al Qaeda backed organization? Sounds like a pickle juice to avoid.

    I am always curious, when someone says they support something, are they speaking words or volunteering? Might feel different about something if your own butt was ever on the line. Not saying yours was not, but there are too many of us that have and are tired of being pawns.

    Suggest Removal

  • stirit

    You are dead wrong! The US striking Syria with missiles will accomplish nothing but more dead Syrians. These people have been killing each other for decades and nothing we do will ever change that.

    Suggest Removal

Editor's Picks