President Obama addressed the nation yesterday to explain why he's pushing for some sort of military strike in Syria.
While Arizona's congressional delegation is split on striking Syria, the one local poll done on the issue showed that Arizonans really don't want military action there.
Congressmen David Schweikert, Paul Gosar, Matt Salmon, and Raul Grijalva (all Republicans, except for Grijalva, a Democrat) have voiced their opinions against military action. The rest of the House members haven't really given a definite opinion either way.
Meanwhile, Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain have been totally for it.
So, President Obama tried to convince Americans why the country's military needs to get involved in another country's matters. This section of his speech (read it all here) explains it pretty succinctly:
If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.
If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad's ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
Well, did that do the trick for you? Did Obama convince you of the need? Cast your vote below:
Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.