(article here)
It was reported today that after Russia's proposal on seizing Syrian weapons, Congress has shifted its focus into considering a bipartisan bill to increase energy efficiency in the US. After President Obama's speech, Congress has since decided to "take a break" from the Syria debate--whether or not a military strike is beneficial to both the US and the world at large. This is quite shocking, considering that Syria openly admitted to having chemical weapons by agreeing to hand them over to Russia, which is technically grounds for war. Instead of taking action, House Republicans are beginning to fight among themselves over Obamacare (once again!).
I believe that this shift from international to domestic issues is a welcome one. The Syria situation has been questionable at best from many different perspectives. I believe that while intervention in Syria for humanitarian purposes is a good idea, a military strike is far from what the US needs. Our military spending outrageously outweighs that of anyone else for a country that hasn't officially been to war since World War II. If we were to send UN officials to intervene, I would be much more inclined to agree. But a military strike means increases in military spending, most likely, when money should be pumped into things that matter, like education, health care, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment