Posted: Sep 10, 2013 6:37 PM EDT Updated: Sep 10, 2013 6:37 PM EDT
By Andrew Ruiz
The consequences of an attack on Syria are stirring up debate among college students. For most of them their whole life’s been full of war, from 9-11 to Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Dr. Jalil Roshandel’s class, class time turned into an open discussion. “9 On Your Side” held a forum Tuesday at East Carolina University, where an overwhelming majority of the students want a diplomatic resolution. They say they’re tired of war and want it all over as soon as possible.
“This isn’t the first time chemical weapons have been used and I’m not sure why this is a red line. We’ve been at war since I was in the fifth grade and I’m now a college junior.” PJ Connelly said.
“I just worry about the affect it’s going to have on the generation that will come after me who will literally live their entire lives growing up through war.” Melvin Lee said.
During Tuesday’s presidential address, Obama will look to persuade Americans that intervening is the right thing to do. “I really need him to come out and tell me why it’s important, beyond the fact that it’s morally wrong.” Lee added.
“I would like to see some objective laid out.” Tyler Dandrea said.
Since the president needs congressional approval to attack Syria we contacted our senators and representatives to find out where they stand on the issue.
Senator Kay Hagan: “While I do not support putting American troops on the ground, this kind of heinous action cannot occur without serious consequences.”
Senator Richard Burr: “Short of putting troops on the ground, it is time for the united states and our NATO allies to take necessary, punitive military action against the Syrian regime.”
Rep. G.K. Butterfield: “Authorizing the use of military force is one of our most important responsibilities and it should not be taken lightly.”
Rep. Walter B. Jones: “I will vote against any proposal to authorize U.S. military intervention in Syria… any money spent to bomb Syria will be borrowed from overseas or will be taken from the defense department’s already-shrinking budget…neither of these options is acceptable.”