President Obama and his administration are arguing facts of the importance of military strikes taking place in Syria following a second chemical attack on civilians in Damascus on Aug. 21.

According to the White House Blog, more than 1,400 civilians were killed in the attack. Over 400 of the casualties were children. Photo and video footage began to surface only a few hours after the attack, showing numerous children wrapped in white cloths.

After the footage began to surface of the Syrian children killed in the attack, the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad became interested in the activity. Assad denied the authorized use of chemical weapons by Syrian military forces. Assad, in an interview with CBS This Morning reporter Charlie Rose, said that there is not “a single shred of evidence” that he and his government is behind the chemical attack.

“It is shocking and deplorable that Syria would use chemical weapons on its own people, including hundreds of innocent children who were murdered in their sleep,” said Senator Kay Hagen in a statement released on Syria.

“While it is positive that the Administration is pursuing an option that may not involve force, we must remain vigilant and ready to respond if Assad is ultimately unwilling to hand over his chemical weapons stockpile.”

The presence of U.S. military in Syria is being highly debated. Some members of congress oppose the option of military action in Syria, while others support the notion. The vast majority have neither opposed nor supported U.S. military action in Syria without further information on the attacks.

“If not a war, some sort of military action should take place in Syria,” said Scott Walker, a member of the U.S. Army and Aggie Battalion. “It would not affect me and my job in the military, but if we do nothing it will be done again.

The White House Office of the Press Secretary issued a joint statement on Sept. 9, by the United States and ten other countries. Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom were among the countries that issued the statement.

The first paragraph states why the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and will not be tolerated among the international community.

“The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal.  The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere.  Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons.”

Since the release of the statement on Sept. 6, over ten other countries have signed in agreement including Germany, Denmark and Albania.

After recently ending war in Iraq, some Americans feel that it is too soon to take on war efforts again.

“If  chemical weapons were used by the US government on civilians, everyone would be concerned,” said Staneisha Griffin, a member of the US National Guard. “The same urgency we would have if it were our children we should have now. This matter is not something to ignore.”

• Chris Greene, Contributor