By Brooke McAfee and Will Huston

The United States is facing an uncertain future in regards to the situation in Syria, and how the government will respond to the crisis. The civil war which erupted during the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has led to the deaths of thousands of people, which can be credited to the use of chemical weapons. This attack has led to debate over whether a diplomatic or a military approach will be best, and whether or not the U.S. should intervene in the first place.

The general response from the public has been against military intervention in Syria. Senior Jennifer Martin expressed her opinion on the matter.

“I think what is happening in Syria is awful, but the U.S. needs to stay out of it.There is no way we can win this, and we would only get ourselves in further trouble. We have enough problems to deal with in the U.S,”  she said.

Others are favor of a military strike. Senior naval science instructor Michael Epperson, who spent 26 years in the Marines, said he sides with Obama on the situation.

“Ultimately, my position is the position of the president and the government. In my military background, we support the president and his decision, and Congress’s decision as well,” he said.

Epperson goes on to say he wants a decision which would end with positive results for the Syrian people.

“What you would want would be whatever action we would take that would have a positive effect and make the country better. You don’t want to do something unless it’s going to make it better and help the people who are innocent, and I think that is the problem the Congress and the president are wrestling on. You never want to fire weapons without proper recourse. You have to live with that for the rest of your life,” said Epperson.

Senior Zach Davenport, who is enlisted with the Marines, said he is in favor of a strike against Syria.

“If Assad keeps doing what he’s doing, I don’t care if Russia gets involved, as long as we get it done right,” he said.

Social studies teacher Suzie Moss said she supports military intervention, if it remains restricted.

“I support limited military intervention to prevent Syria or any country from using military weapons,” she said.

According to social studies teacher Trent McNeeley, the U.S. should make sure they know the full truth about the use of chemical weapons before taking military action.

“It all depends upon the evidence but before we put any American or Syrian lives at risk, we better make certain we have all the facts sure,” he said.

Junior Zac Bruner, who plans on going into the marines, said he predicts the U.S. will become militarily involved in the future, and thinks it would be in the best interests of the Syrian people for the U.S. to intervene.

“We should go over there and help the people who can’t help themselves,” he said.

In a similar area of the world, there is Iran, which is against any sort of military intervention in Syria.

“Iran sees the situation as [though it’s] ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend,’” said Moss.

Epperson also added intervention would have a negative response from countries such as Iran.

“There is so much turmoil in those nations, it won’t be positive. Those countries don’t have a positive attitude towards America now, so it probably wouldn’t help the situation. We have to go with the direction: we’re there to help the innocent,” he said.

While Epperson said he believes there will be a mixed decision from Congress, Martin predicts they will vote against military action.

“I am pretty sure most people are against the war. You always have people who will always go with the president, and people who will always vote against the president, but I think Congress has enough sense to stay out of the war,” she said.

McNeeley, on the other hand, said military action is likely.

“Historically, when the president makes this much noise, it happens,” he said.