I have just learned more about the crises in Syria by reading about the history behind the conflict, the reasons behind United States intervention, and why America seems so divided on the topic of using missiles to make a point out of not using chemical weapons during warfare. 

    If I was in Congress I would be voting for using military action against Syria insofar as it is a limited action that will not be followed with a war. Obama has made it abundantly clear that he isn't seeking an act of war to trigger their military, but rather take a stance against the use of chemical weapons. Many Congressmen and American's are wondering why we should even take action in Syria, and that is why. Although there are still many problems within the country, like political instability and religious tension, past wars have shown us that the United States is in no position to play moderator in inter-state conflict. Therefore, I am against military intervention that will result in war, but I am for upholding the single document that every country has agreed to and ratified.

   The president has been meeting with Congress and the public, which I think is a very wise decision. In previous years when we have entered the Middle East, the military strategies were not as planned and thus caused more casualties for the U.S. as well as wasted tax dollars. I think the fact that Obama is reaching out to another branch of government to discuss the plan of action in Syria just reinforces the idea that his policies are not going to harm the separation of powers. In addressing the people, I think it is very important that the populous stays informed on what their country is about to represent and to be able to provide their own insights. Obama is a great speaker, and I have a feeling his speech on Wednesday will be nothing less of powerful.

   I think that his speech on Wednesday has the potential to attract of repel many citizens from the issue. Many citizens don't know the full story behind what is happening in Syria and the extent to which the United States would be involved. Informing the electorate is critical and addressing all of them on a serious issue will make them pay attention. I think we will have to take military action at some point, given the fact that we have the strongest armed forces members' in the world and is the only country capable of undertaking such a large event such as the usage of chemical weapons will probably help him more than harm it.