Staff shares views on US-Syrian relations

While most people fantasize and think about what they could do if they were president of the United States, President Obama is probably thinking what he wouldn’t do to not be the president of the country in these tough times.
One of the most recent issues on Obama’s and everybody else’s mind, covered in every news outlet and discussed in every social gathering, is the situation in Syria.
For those who know little about the subject, people are dying and chemical weapons are being used.
The use of passive voice in these sentences is justified, because as far as knowledge of who did what goes, most people are in the dark.
Obama, however, in one of his addresses to the nation said he had evidence the Assad regime was responsible for the use of such weapons, repeating Bush’s weapons of mass destruction rhetoric, offering no tangible proof on the matter.
In his speech to the nation Tuesday, Obama implored the American public to support him in his decision to attack the country, saying that presenting a unified front of the nation will help it accomplish its goal easier.
However, the public, including The Gannon Knight’s staff, remains skeptical, with some not having a specific opinion on the matter.
One of the arguments discussed in the newsroom is letting countries deal with their own problems on their own, especially given that the Syrian conflict falls more within the lines of a civil war.
Another argument mentioned is the possibility of having more innocent people killed in the attacks, as drones and bombs can’t differentiate the evil from the good.
We also suggested the U.S. was already not too popular with foreign countries, and engaging in an act of war will not help change that image.
With an attack or not, we wish both regions constant safety, peace and stability.