History to repeat itself


The issue I will be focusing on is the recent gas attack on innocent civilians in Syria, and what it has caused. The incident has brought heavy attention to the country of Syria from the international community, and has caused many countries - such as the United States - to believe that Syria may be in possession of chemical weapons. This has caused many countries to also begin to think of various methods that could be used to stop Syria, if they in fact do possess chemical weapons. The 2 world powers that have a heavy influence on the outcome of this issue are Russia and the United States. Russia believes that Syria should relinquish the chemical weapons to the United Nations. The United States believes that they should just take this into their own hands and invade Syria. Personally, I feel that both ideas present their pros and cons, but I agree with Russia’s' idea more.


The first idea proposed is from the United States. The United States wants to send military forces to Syria, and invade the country, because they strongly believe that the Syrian regime was responsible for the poison gas attack that killed hundreds of its own people. The United States views this as a very similar situation as to what Saddam Hussein did to his own citizens of Iraq for almost 25 years in the 20th century. He tortured and killed his own people, as well as showed support for terrorism. The reason why Saddam was able to kill so many people was because he wasn't stopped early, and that's what the United States wants to do, stop Syria early. In 2003 the United States led the invasion of Iraq; this invasion lasted 2 months and eventually turned into something called the Iraq war that lasted 8 years. The problem I see with a U.S invasion of Syria is that it can turn out like Iraq. If the invasion of Iraq turned into 8 years of war and over 800,000 deaths, who's to say that, an invasion of Syria won't have the same outcome. Another issue I have with a U.S invasion is the possibility of the fighting spilling into neighboring countries of Syria. Syria is surrounded by mainly Turkey and Iraq. Also, Syria is a small country; this would make it extremely easy for any possible opposing Syrian forces to cross over into Turkey or Iraq. This could lead to more war, and more civilian casualties. Also, by having a major power like the United States, disobey the United Nations and go ahead with an invasion, you're basically telling other countries that it’s ok to disobey the United Nation and do what they want. This will eventually lead to the United Nations ending up like the League of Nations, and no one to keep order and peace among the powerful nations of the world.


The other idea that is proposed is by Russia. Russia says that if Syria does indeed possess chemical weapons, they should give them up, and let them be held under international control. If the Syrian regime did commit those crimes against their own people, they should be sent to the international criminal court and tried. Syria should also have the option of joining the chemical weapons convention, as well as reveal details about their chemical program. I like this idea because, it gives Syria options to give up the chemical weapons, without threats, and move forward. I feel that the United States idea is too aggressive and doesn't have a positive outlook moving forward. The most important thing about this idea, that makes it the best option, is that Syria agrees with it. They are willing to work with Russia and the United Nations moving forward, and that is what makes it the best choice.


In conclusion, these are two completely different ideas. The fact that the United States and Russia are not on good terms will not make things easier. Keep in mind, the United States is a powerhouse that needs no one’s permission to do what they think is right, but based on what you've just read; do you think they're right? Only time will tell