In August, most people remember when the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their people in retaliation to rebel forces. In the following weeks, the world was focused on Syria. Did a day go by when it wasn’t on Fox News or MSNBC? Nope.

In September, Obama made a statement threatening a military strike in Syria, but how would that help? We would only be further damaging the country. Plus, Russia explained how they would back Syria if a possible attack happened. Meanwhile, Congress was on the fence about the idea of a strike, along with the rest of America and the world.

Since 2011, there have been over 100,000 deaths in Syria and millions are without homes or shelter due to their civil war. Many have taken refuge in makeshift camps or are hiding out in abandoned buildings.

Ultimately, the rebellion became so powerful that the government turned to chemical weapons.

The U.N. banned chemical weapons use for all countries, which is why it’s hard to believe Syria actually used them because each nation in the world made a law to not use chemical weapons.

We now know that Syria did actually use chemical weapons against their people to control them, according to investigations made by the U.N; and now there’s a debate over what to do with the Syrian President Assad..

Should we replace the government or take away all their chemical weapons? President Obama and President Putin of Russia agreed it would be best to take away Syria’s weapons. Syria has until 2014 to hand over their weapons, and they started the process on Oct. 1, 2013.

Russia and Syria are allies, which is why Russia cooperated with the U.S. to hand over the weapons while supporting Syria when President Obama wanted to strike.

President Putin supports President Assad because Russia has a beachhead in Syria with 600 Russian technicians in it. Also, “Russian companies have major investments in Syria’s infrastructure, energy and tourism sectors, worth $19.4 billion in 2009,” according to an article from UCLA Today, dated Feb. 2, 2013.

The world has stood on edge the last two months because of the possible military strike, but it asks the question: would there be a world war if a possible strike did happen? Syria warned the U.S that if we did attack, they would consider it a terrorist attack and retaliate, which is not what we need right now. The United States can’t handle more debt or death from war.

Editorial note: Since writing this article, Syria has agreed to destroy their chemical weapons under the guidance of  Russia, the United States, and the U.N.

Important Note: This is an individual opinion piece that may or may not reflect the views of the editorial board and the publication.