With the recent anniversary of Sept. 11, many United States citizens feel that the last thing that should be on our president’s agenda is another war.  Considering the economic status of our country and the fact that we still have troops fighting in the Middle East, war is the last thing that the U.S. needs.

There are a few that feel that it is the right thing to do, while others are torn.

The idea of another war does not sit well with me. To think about the cost that we would incur when our economy is not in its best state. The thought of sending troops to Syria when we still have troops in the Middle East is just daunting.

However, when someone breaks an international law and agreement, someone has to let them know that they are wrong and that it should not happen.  Some ask,

“Why is it the United States’ responsibility?” If you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything. No one died and made the United States the leading country in the world, but we are one of the most powerful and independent countries in the world.

In 1977, the U.S. Senate approved an international law agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity now join this agreement.

Many argue that President Obama should be more focused on our failing economy, high unemployment rates and getting our troops back. If Syria and the rest of the world do not see that it is wrong to use chemical weapons, there may very well be another attack. That attack could be on the United States. Wake up people! Would you rather not have a job, or be poisoned and possibly killed from a chemical weapon? I’ll wait.

“Chemical weapons are morally cruel,” said Rayna Stewart. “Someone has to take a stand and do what is best for everyone.”

Stewart is an international economics major from California and is also the Programs Chair for the collegiate Chapter of the NAACP here at A&T. She, like many others are torn on whether or not an attack on Syria is necessary. Stewart said war is also “very costly.”

In a video statement, President Obama stated “the purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.”

I respect the President’s decision. Although war is not the most appealing option, I understand that in the long run it is better for our country.

—Email Laci at [email protected] and follow us on twitter @TheATRegister

• LACI OLLISON, Register Reporter