Essay on Obama Made a Very Good Argument on Syria †and a Very Bad OneEssay Writing Service

Essay on Obama Made a Very Good Argument on Syria – and a Very Bad OneEssay Writing Service Essay on Obama Made a Very Good Argument on Syria – and a Very Bad One Essay on Obama Made a Very Good Argument on Syria – and a Very Bad OneThe situation in Syria is extremely dangerous for the local population as well as the international community because Syria possesses the weapon of mass destruction and, if the situation in Syria goes out of control, consequences will be unpredictable. In such a situation, the argument on whether the US-led coalition should intervene and deploy the military force to stop the Civil War in Syria laying off the regime of Assad or to carry on diplomatic negotiations and pressure on Syria persists. In this regard, the author of the article â€Å"Obama Made a Very Good Argument on Syria – and a Very Bad One†, Ezra Klein, gets involved into the argument with the US President on the US policy on Syria. Even though the author conducts the argument indirectly analyzing critically the speech of the US President, the argument line can be traced clearly. On the one hand, the author clearly states the positi on of the US President, who definitely prefers the diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Syria and refuses to deploy the US army to stop the conflict. On the contrary, the author of the article insists that the US cannot ignore the skyrocketing toll of casualties among civilians in Syria anymore and bold measures should be undertaken by the US and the international community. Obama’s argument is based on the emotional appeal to the audience and the obvious progress in diplomatic negotiations. In response, the author of the article also refers to the audience’s emotions and insists that whatever the weapon is people keep dying in Syria, while the US fails to stop the war using the diplomatic path proposed by President Obama. The argument of the author of the article was strong, whereas the argument of Obama was inconsistent. The author justly remarks that people in Syria keep dying and the majority dies because of the use of the conventional weapon. Therefore, the ci vil war carries on and any delays of active intervention to stop the war will cause more casualties. This is why I believe the author of the article is right arguing that the military interference could be and should be the solution to Syrian problem, while the diplomatic path is the way to nowhere.