Hysteria in Syria: What is to Come?

Over the course of the last month, matters have intensified in the Middle East; specifically Syria. After discovering that Bashar Al-Assad, President of Syria, has been using chemical weapons against it's own people, the Obama Administration has become bent on using military and "humanitarian" force to neutralize the oppressive Syrian leader's regime. There has been a push for a military strike on Syria to retain the "credibility" of the United States of America. President Obama feels as though the U.S. needs to attack their people to prove themselves as serious. Although the Obama Administration passes these actions as the right thing to do, seemingly the rest of the world is against it--with the exception of Canada, Turkey, and France. Even the majority of the United States cannot seem to agree. Is this strive for "credibility"for the good of not only America, but the world?

To answer a question with a question, how rational is it to punish a nation for using weapons on itself by using weapons on it? That would literally be adding fuel to the fire. A number of people, including Pope Francis, believe that an attack on Syria would be "futile".

"To the (G20) leaders present, to each and every one, I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution," plead Pope Francis.

Not to say that Pope Francis' words are the ultimate truth in life, but these words should make one wonder, "What exactly would these attacks accomplish? With Russia and their leader, Vladamir Putin, strongly urging against the strike, Iran threatening the U.S. by stating its alliance with Syria, and with the U.S. at risk of losing key allies such as China, this attack seems to be quite counterproductive. However, maybe this is worth it. Maybe our "credibility" surpasses all of these things, along with the lives and well-being of many Syrian citizens, in importance. It is either that, or Mr. President has ulterior motives. 

With speculation of an upcoming World War III (see here), a deeply dangerous financial crisis (see here) a nuclear holocaust (see here), and President Obama's infatuation with the oil in the Middle East, there is a slight chance that these strikes are less inevitable than we would like to think. Recently, President Obama requested that the Senate Democrats delay the voting process of the authorization of military attacks (cnn.com) on Syria due to a plan orchestrated by Russia to make Syria put its chemical weapons under international control. According to Syrian state TV, this proposal was accepted as they have also agreed to join the Chemical Weapons Convention--which "aims to eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by States Parties. States Parties, in turn, must take the steps necessary to enforce that prohibition in respect of persons (natural or legal) within their jurisdiction" (http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/). With that being the case, is an attack on Syria still imminent? Time can only tell if this is the case. 

Follow me on Twitter @CjayTheGreat. Out. 

No music this time. This is an assignment.