Staff Editorial: Damned if we do, damned if we don't

The life of the average American has become quite trivial as of late. Your neighbor asks you how your day is going and your preprogrammed response is, “Pretty good, how about yours?” The biggest dilemma most of us face on a daily basis is running late for work or school, or racing home to watch our favorite television shows.

It is a rarity nowadays to have to peel yourself away from the countless distractions in society, and take a moment to discuss a global issue that could be a pivotal moment in history.

However, the time for the American people to decide their fate is now. It does not matter whether you are informed about current affairs, or if you even care because the President of the United States has made up his mind.

President Barack Obama has decided that the use of chemical weaponry in Syria is not acceptable, and as a result has deemed it necessary for the U.S. military to launch a “limited strike.”

News of possible American aggression has sparked global controversy, causing the nations of the world to decide whether or not they are for or against the president’s proposed strike.

Sen. John Kerry, who has emerged as an advocate for military action, has confirmed the evidence of chemical weapons being used on civilians.

According to CNN's website, Kerry said, "This isn't Iraq, we've got the proof." This "proof" includes the current death toll in Syria allegedly from chemical attack, which is projected at more than 100,000 deaths.

Most Americans would agree with President Obama that using chemical weapons on an unarmed or civilian population is totally inexcusable and unconscionable, but America is not a planetary protector.

We all need to think of the repercussions of any strike on Syria, no matter how limited.

Even Great Britain, one of our greatest allies, is not in favor of a military strike, and a recent survey found that two-thirds of the British public oppose a strike.

Russia, who has also played a prominent role in U.S. foreign affairs, stated there will be consequences if we do launch an attack overseas. After how things played out with Edward Snowden, this could be Russia’s second strike, and in America, it’s three strikes you’re out.

According to USA Today, Obama said, “I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria — American boots on the ground in Syria — would be good for America but would also be good for Syria.

Sounds like fancy politician talk, but what exactly does it mean? If there is not going to be ground personnel deployed by U.S. military, then does that mean that Obama plans to bomb the hell out of Syria?

That is something that the largest-funded military in the world is very good at. Obama would not even have to leave the Oval Office to launch a couple drones at his latest problem.

At the moment, Congress has not approved any military action, so Obama has no legal grounds to move forward. But that has not stopped U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and 10 other ships from sailing into the Red Sea as a preemptive move.

The whole situation has turned ugly, and is on the verge of madness. It makes no sense that the leader of the free world would willingly bomb a country that has suffered tremendously at the hands of its own leaders.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind, and the United States is not a global police force. Using chemical weapons is not right, but launching bombs and spreading more death certainly is not the solution.

Editorial, OpinionRomanComment