Disarming Syria of chemical weapons is better than military intervention
Disarming Syria of chemical weapons is better than military intervention
Syria was recently accused of having a stock of chemical weapons and those weapons being used against the civil people of the country. Syria has again hit the news by it handing over its chemical weapons.
For:
- The intervention of military would have devastating concerns for the region, making deeper the two-year-old civil war further. It would also have a setback on the crumbly global economy, in return increasing the crude oil prices at a very speedy rate
- Syria’s identity is a combination of Alawite, Druze, Sunni, and Arab traditions, and in this case if they go against each other, they would have to face lamentable aftermaths
- The foreign military intervention may reinforce terrorism
- Disarming Syria with chemical weapons would also safeguard from the weapons being misused
Against:
- Syria being the only country holding a stock of chemical weapons would disable from anyone using it for their protection
- The foreign military intervention may incline in favour of the rebels
- The brunt of the consequences will deepen the 2 year old civil war as well
- The combat in Syria is fundamentally a regional battle along with intricate cross linkages and disarming them would disable Syria to fight the battle and protect themselves.
Conclusion:
- The use of chemical weapons has already harmed en-number of innocent people. Continuous usage of chemical weapons would have increased this harm on the innocent people.
Discussion
- RE: Disarming Syria of chemical weapons is better than military intervention -Rajani Sharma (12/14/13)
- FOR
- Disarming Syria will only help in curbing the Assad regime’s striking power and it will also allow the management to make sure that chemical weapons doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.
- Countries like Russia and other government also welcoming the decision of Syria to disarm the chemical weapons.
- Military Intervention will only bring more war and terror in the heart and mind of people. It will create fear and severe actions can be done on the country in possession of such things.
- There should be a resolution pass for all the countries to disarm the chemical weapons so that there remains no fear in people from war and from the use of chemical weapons.
- Under the international pressure a successful disarm of Syria for chemical weapons will only lead the way for a political dialogue between the Assad Regime and the rebels which will be a big loss.
- Military intervention will only destroy the goodwill of USA administration that they have shown in Arab countries.
Against
- Disarming Syria of chemical weapon will be a dangerous and intensive task as it might bring lots of instability in the country and its people.
- Military intervention might result in favour of the rebels and in opposition of other countries who are trying to weaken the nuclear power of Syria.
- Disarming chemical weapon in Syria would be a difficult task as destroying can spread deadly agents which will make it more difficult for any country to handle and will bring worse consequences.
- Military intervention will destroy the region and will deepen the civil war that has very high impact between the countries.
- Disarming Syria of chemical weapons will not only destroy the fragile global economy but also sharply push up the crude oil prices.
- This disarming of chemical weapons won’t help Syria in battles and they will be disabled to protect themselves in case of a fight out between different nations. - RE: Disarming Syria of chemical weapons is better than military intervention -Suman (10/15/13)
Disarming Syria of chemical weapons is better than military intervention.
THE Disarming plan of chemical weapons for Syria has hampered out in Geneva by Russian minister. Removing these dangerous weapons in a civil war would be a successful mission. But the United States and United Nations must not lose attention from a larger mission to end the battles of bullets and bombs that have killed innocent people.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lavrov has promised that to remove the entire Syrian chemical weapons and filling and mixing equipment; full and empty weapons and delivery systems; chemical agents not yet weaponized; precursor chemicals; and material and equipment for research and development. This would make it very difficult for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad start again a chemical weapons program.
However, such a move would have dangerous consequences for the region. It would also be a big push to the global economy, which are increasing crude oil prices.
Successful disarmament would also make the way for a political relation between the Assad and his oppositions. But the disarmament plan enables the US to save face and work towards a diplomatic solution in Syria.
I think that the disarming would be the safest solution to end the war and conflicts. By military intervention there would most of the killings of innocent people. But there might be also some difficulties in disarming also because Syria might not easily surrender the chemicals weapons. If they want to end safely they can surrender the chemical weapons.
