Essentially, "Ten days after Obama made a surprise announcement that he intended to seek congressional authority for military action, the president Tuesday night said he had asked leaders in Congress to postpone a vote on a resolution for such an attack.
Obama sought the postponement, he said, so he could pursue an emerging potential diplomatic solution proposed by the Russian government that would head off an attack against Syria."
Do you think this is the right decision? Do you think the diplomatic solution will be effective? Explain your opinions!
__________________
Lego, Cav (the Lego brand name was derived from the Danish expression "leg godt" - play well - and lego also translates in Latin as "I study" or "I put together"...really, one of the world's most perfect words!)
I don't think it is the best way of going at this whole matter because that is putting alot of trust into a merciless dictator who is willing to bomb and raise an army against his own people. But on the other hand bombing a bunch of civilians and getting another full country mad at us and want to go to war is not smart.
I think we should wait and see what diplomatic solutions ensue. If we don't need to become involved in the Middle East again then why should we? If Russia is able to effectively stop the Syrian government, it would be an overall sigh of relief for Americans and the UN. (hopefully)
I think it's unfair for wrongdoers to get away with what they've done; it seems like Syria should be punished for its actions. However, sometimes certain events happen and it's not up to us to solve these problems. It would be a good idea to see what these diplomatic relations do and how they can help resolve the problem.