Discursive essay for english free essay sample

Intervention in Syria A deadly civil war has been raging for two years in Syria between the government and the rebels. Consequently, on 21st August, Damascus was struck by rockets containing chemical materials. Within hours thousands of innocent people were left profoundly distressed at the barbaric aftermath caused by these sudden attacks. 1,429 people were killed including 426 children and the manner of their deaths was unspeakably grim. The Syrian government were accused of conducting these attacks but denied allegations even though evidence clearly shows they were complicit in this deeply inhumane massacre of their own people. Should we just stand passively and allow more chemical callous carnage or should we take military action with the strong possibility that if we do so this could lead to more deaths than we imagined despite the honourable motive involved.’ Critics of military action in Syria argue that it is ill advised as it could lead to a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, our troops have been in Iraq since 2003, are still fighting and this has done nothing to make our country safer. If we send out troops to Syria how long will they be expected to come to terms with the vicious hostility before this bitter civil war? Almost inevitably families will be separated from loved ones or find themselves mourning their loss. Why should they suffer for an entrenched conflict that has nothing to do with them? Moreover, Barack Obama has stated if America does intervene military it will not be ‘on foot.’ Consequently, that means they will be taking action through air force but there are grave doubts about the effectiveness of this. If action is taken through air force that would certainly involve air strikes which means that they could be killing more innocent people than we anticipated to ensure that less of our own soldiers die even though ironically, we are trying to prevent more killings happening in Syria. Those opposed to intervention argue that although helping Syria is moral we could be wasting a large amount of financial resources especially in a global recession. After all, the money used to send troops and weaponry could be redirected towards more constructive activities that will help us as a country to develop like education and the NHS. Overall, the country is struggling with money and using it on expensive intervention that might not be effective could be seen as a waste. If we must spend money on this conflict the government should use it on humanitarian resources like  building shelter, providing water and food to those who are affected, instead of squandering it on military interventions that will involve killing people. However, Britain has already spent  £89.5million of aid for Syrian and this is apparently still not enough. If we continue to provide colossal sums of money for aid how hard will that affect our pressed country? Opponents of intervention always argue t hat taking military action could aggravate the delicate balance of power throughout the world. After all, Russia is an ally of Syria and if we are to take military action this could lead to Russia intervening to defend Syrian government forces. The world has already suffered from World War One and Two and to think mankind could be drawn into another barbaric global conflict is horrific. We have surely learnt how fragile civilisation can be due to these past wars so why intervene and chance another potentially apocalyptic war. It is a very dangerous, complex and volatile strategy to get involved with another country’s civil war which is unstable and probably best left alone. Moreover, Syria is well known for their chemical weapons and has warehouses full of them and ready to use. It is so easy to access these warehouses and if they are not protected carefully and responsibly they could end up in the hands of the rebels. However, chemical weapons are not the only problem. Both the Syrian government and rebels have access to large amounts of guns and ammunitions. Consequently, if we take military action and kill both members of the rebels and the government we will be targeted by two enemies that both have access to destructive weapons putting our own people in danger. Furthermore, many people believe if we decide to take military action we will have to choose a side between the government and the rebels. In doing so, whatever side we choose, we will still find ourselves with an enemy. Furthermore amongst the rebels is the global militant Islamist organisation, Al Qaeda. If we become enemies of this fanatical, violent organisation this could lead to unthinkable terrorist attacks and the use of chemical weapons directed against us. Those who disagree with intervention in Syria believe there is alternative ways to resolve this conflict. Instead of sending the military out to resolve this civil war we should be thinking about non violent ways to approach Syria and help bring peace. Many feel we should be calling for a truce in Syria and try to negotiate Syria with the present regime to destroy their stock piles of  chemical weapons. After all, both the rebels and government will not win with their violent ways and we should be seeking to persuade them to approach each other peacefully and bring an end to this civil war. However with both sides having strong views against each other the task will not be easy but taking military action and risking people’s lives is surely In conclusion, I strongly believe we as a country should not take military action against Syria. More innocent citizens should not have to suffer due to our decisions and we should save ourselves the embarrassment of making the same mistake that we made in 2003 by sending our troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many more civilised ways for us to help such as providing aid and facilitating negotiation. After all, war is never a satisfactory solution and often leads to escalating misery and despair.