President Trump, Tomahawk Missiles Right on Target in Syria
The president was right to take action in the wake of the recent chemical attack in Syria.
April 17, 2017
Filed under Opinions
Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.
Email This Story
While President’s Trump and Xi Jinping were enjoying dinner down in Florida late last week, 59 tomahawk missiles were on their way to Syria, striking the airfield that had unleashed a vicious and deadly chemical attack on rebel-held land in the war-torn country.
Ever since, tensions between the United States and Syria, along with its allies in Russia, Iran and North Korea, have intensified, leaving many to questions Trump’s order to fire those missiles into the civil-war ridden country.
North Korea has been touting their supposed expansive nuclear arsenal for years without legitimate action, while Russia is more unpredictable, most recently seen by their deeming of the latest draft of a United Nations resolution regarding Syria.
Unlike the North Koreans, they actually have the resources to back up their stance, and they need Syria as a strategic buffer between themselves and Iran.
In light of these factors, it was not only the right thing to do, but necessary to show the Syrian rebels that the United States cares is stands with them in the face of their oppressive government.
Since the Chemical Weapons Treaty, which outlawed the stockpiling, production and use of chemical weapons, was brought into force in 1997, almost the entire world’s chemical weapons stockpile has been destroyed.
The United States is a part of NATO, who is fundamentally and utterly opposed to the use and spread of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons.
Syria, Russia and North Korea are obviously not a part of NATO or any organization seeking peaceful resolutions to global issues, and the fact that Bashar al-Assad would unleash such deadly weaponry on his own people is something that just simply could not go unanswered.
I understand that the president has said in the past that he thought getting involved in Syria was a bad idea and all, but it would be almost inhumane not to respond with force in this situation, especially with video surfacing of Syrians, some young children and babies, writhing and shrieking in pain on the ground.
In a way, I would have been upset if the president hadn’t retaliated in any way. In doing so, he showed that America is back and ready to attain peace through strength in its foreign affairs.
Cruel rulers like Assad need to know that the days of hiding behind a faulty red line or sending angry letters from NATO that we were so accustomed to seeing throughout the previous eight years are no more.
The bottom line is, this was a strategic strike where no one was killed and one done only to send a message through the destruction of an airfield that the United States and the world will not tolerate the use of chemical weaponry.
No one was killed, and we are not going into Syria. Although it’s apparently unpopular to do so on most college campuses and around the country in general, I support what my president did on this occasion.
Action was taken when action was required, and the world once again knows who rules the roost among the global elites.