Bloodshed in Iraq

On April 25, 2013, Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times wrote an article called "Iraq Fighting Leaves at Least 41 More People Dead". The article discusses about an event that occurred on Thursday, when Iraqi security forces fought against Sunni Arabs. Thirty one of the casualties were from the Sunni Arabs, but the rest were security forces. There are two ways of looking at this. The good way to look at it is that Iraq has the capability now to protect itself and has a force that can do so. The bad part of this is that the forces are not well trained, causing casualties, and also there is a rise of conflict again between the people. To start of with the casualties, it is crucial that a force that has been newly developed has as least casualties as possible because it begins to make the morale of the men go down, and their effectiveness on the battlefield can lower also. Next, rising conflicts in Iraq can cause international danger again also. Because the United States settled the country down, but did not clear the country completely from the fighters, problems like such can occur. Yes, the United States trained the forces and supplied them as much as they can, but the fighters gave so much trouble against the United States, so we can just imagine how much trouble they will give to the Iraqi security forces. Hopefully, nothing big begins again in Iraq.

Suspicion of Chemical Weapons in Syria

On April 25, 2013, David Cloud of the Los Angeles Times wrote an article called "White House Suspects Syria Used Chemical Weapons, Seeks Inquiry". The article discusses how the White House has a suspicion that the Syrian government is using chemical weapons. This, of course, is against international law, and it can not be done. But, during the time of war, Syria has seen it necessary to use. The White House is searching for clues and answers to see if there was such a use of weapons in Syria, and if there was and they have well enough proof to prove it, then they will take action. The chemical mainly being seen in Syria is sarin. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has made it obvious that he wants some steps to be taken for Syria. The United States is using what proof it has so far to push something to change in the United Nations. If the United States can get the United Nations to act, then it will be able to work much more easily and drive the actions down the road they want to go. If the United States intervenes into Syria, its the last of the Assad government as we know it. 

America Preparing for Intervention in Syra

On April 17, 2013, David Cloud of the Los Angeles Times wrote an article called "Step Toward Possible Military Intervention in Syria". The article discusses how America is taking steps which hints out a possible intervention into Syria. Syrian refugees have been fleeing to places such as Turkey and Jordan. America has decided to send troops and aid to both of these countries to support these citizens, and stop any violence from occurring if the Syrian conflict will spill over to those countries. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that these measures are to ensure peace in the region and to help out these countries in any way possible. He also stated that if America would intervene into Syria, these forces will be the vanguard of the assault. Two hundred troops were deployed in Jordan, including a lot of aid. In my opinion, something may happen in the next couple of weeks, but anything is possible. If America does intervene into Syria, the main reason will be to stop the terrorist threat growing in Syria.

A Win for the Rights of All Americans

On April 17, 2013, Michael Memoli of the Los Angeles Times wrote an article called "Senate Rejects Gun Background Check Measure". The article discusses the news that the senate rejected the background check measure, also, rejecting bans on assault rifles and other types of weaponry. In general, I am very glad because at least the Senate has the sense of mind to reject some outrage of such, but also I am disappointed for only one part of the bill. That part of the bill is the background check part. This was the only sensible measure Liberals had offered, but the Senate declined. In my opinion, if liberals introduced different bills for each type of change they wanted, the background check measure would have passed, but they attached other absurd measures to it, such as banning assault rifles. The only change America needs in the gun debate is to add background checks and education before buying a firearm the first time, but 90% of America does not understand that, and therefore they keep demanding a ban. What people do not understand is that criminals will still get their hands on these weapons, even if the government bans them, but now they are lowering the chances of a civilian protecting him/herself from a criminal. It was a great victory for gun rights advocates, but there is still a huge hill to climb.