Staff writer discusses conflict in Syria, attributes media buzz to use of chemical weapons

Sheila Gregory, Co-Editor

The year the Civil War started here in America. Brother against brother. A nation divided.
Fast forward to now. A war is raging in the Middle East between the rebels in Syria and the Government.
This is something many countries go through.
The reason it has much buzz to it is that the leaders there used chemical warfare. This is a line that shouldn’t be crossed.
According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), all chemical and biological warfare has been banned since World War I.
In an interview with ABC news Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said, “Each time these rules are broken and there’s an inadequate response, the risk that some of the world’s most dangerous weapons will be used in even further atrocities is going to increase — that’s why here and why now,”
President Barack Obama wants to make a strike to stop these leaders, but has little support.
Senator Rand Paul said “strikes could destabilize the country or even increase the odds that opposition forces obtain chemical weapons,” according to “USA Today.”
The President won’t just sit by while Syria breaks International Law.
“We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we’ve seen out of Syria,” Obama said.
He is referring to the images of civilians wrapped in white cloth, dead and others fighting for air.
Obama doesn’t even have the support of his own party.
According to “USA Today,” while most are undecided, a mere 28 Democrats support it in Congress.