EDHS Contemporary World Affairs

Russizzle · Veteran Member

Syrian Official: "Middle East will be on fire" if U.S. attacks

BrianCuban · Veteran Member

I feel like if we attack Syria it could escalate to much worse things such as a full blown war which would cause more deaths on both sides. It could also spark war to spread to other countries such as iran and isreal, which could then escalate to even worse situations. I dont think we should attack.

Lia_Love522 · Senior Member

Yea I agree, especially since so many countries aren't willing to side with us. I mean seriously if the world is literally telling you not too then I'm not sure why were trying to fight it. Yet, if the world changes view points and it gets devistatingly worse then action may be neccesary but right now? No.

Partysquid · Senior Member

I believe most people don't want to side with us because they know that if we go to war, the consequences would be either extremely devastating or apocalyptic. Remember, Russia is sided with Syria, and they have nuclear arms out the wazoo. I believe we should step in on the matters but not in a way that would cause any true conflict.

Zoe Kline-Koenig · Senior Member

I think we should stay out of Syria. We are still involved in other wars, and are already pulled thin. We have a budget crisis, that will only be made greater if we decide to spend our funding on these bombs and possibly another war. Also, it is concerning to me that countries who are typically our allies are not on board with the plan.

Zachattack · Veteran Member

If we have no help going into Syria.. i think we need to stay out.

jenniferleonard · Veteran Member

I do not think we should attack Syria. If major UN members, such as China, do not believe we should take action, then why should we? What happens if we need help and they aren't willing to? I think we should listen to the many other countries telling us not to take action, and maybe even wait longer just to see how everything pans out.

Ccollector · Newbie

I think we should not attack Syria for a couple of reasons. One, if we attack we are alone if it leads to war and possibly be against russia, which would be a massive waist of money and human lives. Two, what makes chemical weapons any worse than any other weapons, yes there are other unnecessary casualties but aren't there always? And didn't we use chemical weapons to fight in a war? Why should we get away with it, and Syria is now a crisis to American's eyes?

Partysquid · Senior Member

Ccollector wrote:
I think we should not attack Syria for a couple of reasons. One, if we attack we are alone if it leads to war and possibly be against russia, which would be a massive waist of money and human lives. Two, what makes chemical weapons any worse than any other weapons, yes there are other unnecessary casualties but aren't there always? And didn't we use chemical weapons to fight in a war? Why should we get away with it, and Syria is now a crisis to American's eyes?

Syria is a crisis to American eyes because of the fact that they used it on their own civilians. Including their children. It is not so much the weapon that they used, but who they used it on that is the main problem.

Kristen Lindner · Veteran Member

I agree that we should not attack Syria. With major countries that are building up their power like China, who doesn't support our involvement with Syria at this moment. I could see them turning against us. And then having issues with them.

diana07 · Member

I feel like we are diving into this way too soon. We are just ending one war and now we on the path to starting yet another one.

D3cimat3r · Veteran Member

i would say dont go in alone

sheilasey · Senior Member

I do not think that we should strike Syria because we do not have any support from any other countries and our country is still recovering from a recession. Also we do not know the full details of the chemical attack or the true perpetrator. By striking now, we may create an even bigger conflict as relations are already sour.