|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 9, 2018 11:07:38 GMT
Trump Warns of ‘Big Price’ After Suspected Chemical Attack in Syria See Google Doc- Posted on Classroom- for description and resourcesPoints of Discussion: 1) Connecting to class content related to the Presidency and wartime powers, what role “should” President Trump play in this situation? Explain your reasoning 2) How do chemical weapons differ from conventional weapons? Are they “worse” or are they “just as indiscriminate and horrible as chemical weapons?” 3) What about chemical weapons do you think has made them such a taboo historically? 4) As former President Obama stated in 2013 and as President Trump’s response has shown, does there need to be international action when the figurative “red line” has been crossed? Why or why not? For full credit, you will need to specifically reference all resources. For full credit, responses will be approximately 350-400 words in length. Peer responses need to be more than one or two sentences. Original posts by Friday at 11:59pm, April 13th Two (2) peer replies by start of class on Monday, April 16th |
|
|
|
Post by Lindey on Apr 11, 2018 1:44:08 GMT
There has been a topic that has been brought up this week and has many people talking about what will or will not Trump do. After what activist in Syria claim was a chemical weapon attack on their people by the Assad regime forces, this question of if there should be an “international response” or not has been the hot topic on everyone's mind and people just want answers. When it comes to Trump having a role in this there are 2 sides of the topic, either that he should get involved to try to help the people and try to prevent future chemical attacks from happening. Then the other side thinks that he should stay away from it and not get involved because in the end it would not help or solve anything and could potentially make things worse. However ever since 9/11 had taken place the president has been using the AUMF to be able to fight the “war on terror” as President Bush called it. From congress.gov it states the AUMF the 60 word sentence, which states, ”IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” When Trump is seeing all of this happening he wants to try to help and put an end to it, because in the end these are innocent people who are being hurt. It said from vox that, “killing at least 42 adults and children,” this is not just killing people instantly but giving them many problems that they are having to face, “signs of respiratory distress, central cyanosis, excessive oral foaming, corneal burns, and the emission of chlorine-like odor (npr).” Also this is not the first time that they have used chemical weapons against their people, Trump was not going to do anything until they crossed what Obama called the “red line,” they have no true purpose for what they are doing besides putting fear into their citizens lives. People say that conventional weapons are worse than chemical because they could kill more people, but when looking into the 4 types they are way more involved and should not be able to be used. Since they have different types and many different syndromes that derive from using different ones they are considered taboo, people want nothing to do with them and do not want to mess with them. Trump should intervene on this topic and get involved even though from Vox it states, “What it wouldn’t do, for sure, is change the course of the Syrian civil war. Assad would still likely hold on to power, even if the war drags on for years — killing untold numbers of Syrians in the process.” This may be true but if Trump can get involved and show that they can not get away with killing innocent people it might be able to deter Assad from doing it again. It is better for him to act and then it not fix the problem completely, then to not act and only make it easier for Assad to hurt even more people again.
Do you think that from the Vox article saying that it would not change anything true, or do you think that this actually would be able to change what could potentially happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffer on Apr 12, 2018 1:18:13 GMT
When President Trump first came into office he stated that he will not intervene with the Syrian civil war. That all changed recently when Syrian Dictator Assad used chemical weapons against his own people for the second time. Chemical Weapons are viewed as taboo in warfare in the 21st century due to their ability to harm anyone that comes in contact with the gas no matter what side they are fighting, or if their even fighting at all. Chemical weapons are more dangerous than conventional bombs and weapons because they have a physiological effect on the victims and also can kill more individuals than conventional bombs and weapons.The civil war in Syria is very entwined with different groups fighting for different thing and different alliances within each group. The main problem with this war is that there is no way to stop the violence unless we get involved. Getting involved is not just getting involved with one country but many and some of the countries we as Americans would be disagreeing with and fighting against would be allies. Such as Turkey who has been attacking Kurds and not ISIS which is the main focus and enemy of the US for the past years. Most of this confusion is from miscommunication, different plans on attacking, and different wants and needs for being in the war. Former President Obama and president Trump have shown that there is a need for a red line in warfare today and a international punishment for this red line being crossed. If there was a so called red line it may prevent such things as chemical weapons being used and or other tactics of war that are controversial. This would work great if it meant not getting involved in a big spider web of alliances and groups that could cause future problems or even war. Such problems may occur if we as a nation get involved with the Syrian civil war. Even if it means that we have stopped violent attacks of chemical weapons being used on thousands of innocent women and children.
What is the best approach to entering a civil war of a foreign country? Is it to attack the enemy and end it quickly or support one side?
If we do attack will it cause problems with Russia?
|
|
|
|
Post by T Donaldson on Apr 12, 2018 3:28:08 GMT
The Syria Chemical attacks have brought attention to the region by many countries. The current dictator is Assad, the alleged person behind the chemical attacks responsible for killing at least 40 people according to the Chicago Tribune. This number is significant in relation to the method that was used, thus the involvement by the United States. Chemical warfare dates back to World wars. However, during World war 2 it was seen as a negative thing and most leaders did not use it, because of the extermination of the Jews. In addition, President Trump recently stated that he wanted to pull out of Syria and then this happened returning his focus. In his mind the "red line" talked about in the Vox article highlights the fact that Trump believes that Assad should pay. This red line existed during the Obama Administration and was believed it needs to be crossed before we get involved. The only issue is Russia is a close ally to Syria and they have stated they will return fire if missiles are launched. A tweetstorm by President Trump began after Russia made the comment. This power that the President currently holds is now in fact alarming. This connects to the overreach of power in the executive branch. If the president's powers was more limited like the framers wanted, Trump would not be starting the attack. Instead he would be the commander in chief passing order through the military. The best way to approach is to take a step back from the situation and make an educated decision. We still do not know all of the facts from the chemical attacks and should not act in the wrong manner. This is happening with General Mattis and his team, which is very strategic and beneficial to our country. Another major point to bring up is, that Congress seems to be on board with a missle strike as stated in the Npr article, That all options are on the table. If this is looked at on a broader range is it worth getting involved in a major conflict over a country that is war torn and almost unrepairable.
Will President Trump go through with his plans to strike according to Twitter?
Will Russia respond like they have said? If so, what does this lead to?
|
|
|
|
Post by burnett on Apr 12, 2018 12:20:03 GMT
After looking over and learning the background of chemical weapons. These are very dangerous and harming so many innocent people. A big question is floating around “Should the international community be involved..” Having hundreds of thousands Syrians losing their lives in a span of four years is ridiculous. Having millions kicked out their homes to be “refugees” is just horrible. There needs to be other countries getting involved to help these people, but what does this look like? Trump said that he would be talking to generals over the next day, and Syria having a big price to pay. Having this happen does anyone really know what Trump is willing to do? “Trump is making major decisions, to rule out more military actions in the next couple days” said the article CNBC. Also another reason this is such an important issue is because chemical weapons are more dangerous than conventional weapons. Chemical weapons are deadly causing burns, breathing problems, blisters, and even more. There are four different kinds of chemical weapons, to cause different and painful reactions. I believe having Trump getting involved will help a lot. The United States does not get involved that much in regional issues, but I think these attacks that are causing so much death among women and children is making Trump cross the “red line” unlike Obama when he was president. Having the Assad using chemical weapons to hurt innocent people is very wrong. Using tips of arrows dosed with chemical substances and also poisoning the wells of towns.
Chemical weapons have been such a taboo in history because in the article Washington Post it states “Assad's apparent sarin attack represented yet another blow to the global norm prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. But the significant violation of the taboo in Syria is not likely to lead to the routine use of chemical weapons in future conflict.” In Syria using chemical weapons was against the law, but now they are using them? There needs to be an end to this conflict, it is ruining so many people’s lives. At the time that this started Obama stated “ the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets..” This was said in 2013, and he did not take any action. Now that
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Pierce on Apr 12, 2018 23:16:23 GMT
The Syrian civil war is a tragedy, homes and families have been destroyed all the same. Many different factions are fighting for control, independence, or just trying to hold on to what has been passed down to them. Given this, many different countries have emerged to give their support to their side. Many people that will never see a battlefield will say all is fair in love and war. Well fortunately most countries have agreed that chemical weapons are not fair. They are considered to be inhumane, because they do not kill immediately. In essence they cause blisters, burns, and many other horrific dangers. Most people that use these chemical weapons are people that are trying to intimidate those that oppose them. They inspire fear and they always have. Whenever you hear chemical weapons you think of horrific events committed by terrible people. Luckily there are bans on them, the CWC is a multilateral treaty that bans chemical weapons and requires their destruction within a specified period of time. The treaty is of unlimited duration and is far more comprehensive than the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which outlaws the use but not the possession of chemical weapons. Most world leaders agree with this treaty and when someone like Assad uses the banned weapons, that in theory crosses the imaginary red line as stated by former President Obama. But when Assad used them Obama was out of office and Donald trump was the President. He sent missiles to hit a airbase. Unfortunately, that did not deter Assad, he used them on his own people again. So given this the president of the United States Donald Trump is expected to do something about this. It will most likely be a very big show of power to show Assad what we as a nation can harness. It will be very interesting to see what actions Trump takes and to see the effects of these actions have on the country, as in syria.
Will Syria ever heal from the war?
Will Assad have to be ousted from his position for peace to be gained in Syria?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Helzlsouer on Apr 13, 2018 0:24:19 GMT
In the recent events with Syria using chemical weapons not only is it building pressure in between countries it also is putting innocent people at risk from being attached with chemical weapons. According to the NPR “Many of the dead are reportedly women and children. Death tolls, vary with the Syrian Civil Defense, a professional opposition group also known as the White Helmets, reporting at least 42 fatalities.”, in this quote it shows that their are obviously innocent people dying from these chemical attacks and that is exactly why Trump feels that he needs to intervene on the situation. Personally if we as the United States let this happen without intervention we shouldn’t be able to consider ourselves to be a holy or great nation. In Trumps situation he’s justifiably doing the right thing in helping the rebels gain advantage on the corrupted government of Syria. Not only is this wrong because Assad is killing people it’s worse because of his methods. Chemical weapons are a very cruel choice of weapon because it gives its victims a slow and extremely painful death. From the NPR “According to the Syrian Civil Defense and SAMS, people went to the hospital showing signs of respiratory distress, central cyanosis, excessive oral foaming, corneal burns, and the emissions of chlorine-like odor.”, this is some only some of the symptoms that these victims are experiencing and it is horrific and degrading. In the past times of war nobody really used chemical weapons. This was because they are deemed to be to ruthless of weapons. Personally if a weapon is bad to the point where every country would decide to opt out the opportunity to use a certain type of weapon then that weapon should really be more of a restriction on being able to make them as well to make 110% sure that this weapon won’t be used again. Also a lot of people realize that our president Donald Trump has already bombed Syria and is threatening to do it again. From our previous president Obama he would have never done this, so does this mean that trump had already crossed a line that he cannot come back from? Was his original bombing a good thing and would it be considered good if he did it again for the second time? Or should the United States stay completely out of the dispute including Syria.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gray on Apr 13, 2018 0:38:18 GMT
The war in Syria has been a devastating issue for many years. However, in recent years, it has gotten a lot more out of hand and severe. There have been hundreds of thousands of Syrian lives lost in only 4 and a half years and it is estimated that roughly 1 million have been forced from their homes. Nations from all over the world have gotten involved in this war, rightfully so. Our president of the united states should be involved in this as well to help end this gruesome civil war. America is one of the most powerful countries in the world so we have every right to get involved in an issue that is taking lives at a catastrophic rate. Therefore, America should use it powers to help all the innocent civilians that are losing their lives for a war that they are not even fighting. Syria is using chemical weapons against their own people to send a message to the rebels which is awful and needs to be put an end to which the president can do by possibly sending airstrikes to their bases. Also, as mentioned, they are in fact using chemical weapons. Chemical Weapons are weapons of mass destruction and are the worst and most inhumane form of weaponry. As expert Jonathan Tucker wrote, “(chemical weapons) defeat strong without a fair, physical fight”. This statement is absolutely true. No one can fight back against a Chemical Weapon unless if they chose to fight back with more chemical weapons. Chemical warfare is a scary thought because they have to power to obliterate mass amount of people in an excruciatingly painful death, They disrupt the nervous system, blistering of skin, permanent lung damage, and breathing complications which is creates suffering and many of the people affected are innocent civilians, mostly women and children. So yes, Chemical weapons are way worse than conventional weapons because they have the power to kill mass amounts of people in the most inhuman way imaginable because even if they do not die initially, they will suffer from life long complications. They need to be completely banned. In 1993, there was a Chemical Weapon convention which all nations joined. However, syria did not which is very alarming and proves that not everyone will compromise. Historically, they have been taboo due to their horrible outcomes and chaos that follows. In Addition, there definitely needs to be international action when a “red line” has been crossed because although we are America and we need to protect our citizens, we also need to protect others in danger especially on a scale like this one. When thousands of people are losing their lives in such a vicious manner, we should step in to help them and end the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davis on Apr 13, 2018 2:08:27 GMT
In the wake of the chemical attack in Syria many countries have responded by saying it was a violation of human rights and something need to be done about it. In particular president trump has said that there is a big price that the Syrian government will pay for doing something so inhumane like this. Some may wonder what these chemical weapons are. Chemical weapons are powerful poisonous gases that have 4 different types. The reading states that they are “nerve agents, which disrupt the nervous system; blister agents, which lead to painful blistering of the skin; choking agents, which impede breathing and can cause permanent lung damage; and blood agents, which cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, and, in high doses, convulsions and comas” and these weapons do not typically kill on contact but people can die from the aftereffects of the chemicals. In response to the chemical attacks President Trump has made many tweets that a big price will indeed come to Syria for what they have done. The president should assume the role and take action along with other nations to do the “Big Price” that Trump is talking about. The NPR article even states that “Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are also calling on President Trump to act definitively” which is a good thing knowing that a lot of democrats completely disagree with most of Trump's actions. If Trump chooses not to take action it could lead to other nations thinking we are weak and “powerless against Russia”, as stated in a Business Insider article. If the President does choose to launch a missile strike, a Business Insider article states, “If Russia were to retaliate against a US Navy ship with its own heavy navy presence in the region, the escalation would most likely resemble war between the two countries” which Russia has said that they will attack the place the missile came from too along with taking out the missle. If the United States and other countries decide to attack Syria it could help stop what Assad is doing but it could also start another bigger conflict if Russia acts after the attacks on Syria.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hinchberger on Apr 13, 2018 4:30:50 GMT
What will Trump do about this chemical attack? People in Syria were attacked by chemical weapons possibly by their own government the Assad regime forces. The big question that Trump has to answer is there enough evidence for US involvement in Syria about chemical weapons. Trump could either help the citizens of Syria by defending them or leave them be because there is no conclusive evidence that it is the government attacking the people and there is no possible way that we could expect a “good” outcome for america by getting involved and putting more strain on the Russia American relationship. Due to the fact that innocent people are being hurt and even killed it just makes President Trump furious and egar to help those who are in need. Even though “42 adults and children” (www.vox.com) were killed, it is not the end of the suffering from just that one attack other people are experiencing “signs of respiratory distress... corneal burns, and the emission of chlorine-like odor” (www.npr.org). Even though this is not the first suspected time that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people there is no conclusive proof that the government actually committed this horrible massacre. Most people would say that chemical weapons are worse than other weapons of war due to the amount of suffering that can be endured by being poisoned. Since chemical weapons can not be controlled to the fullest extent while in use they are frowned upon by many countries to be used in any circumstances unless they were used on “your” country first. Trump should not get militarily involved in this chemical weapons topic because it would just add to the strain on the Russian American relationship and could cause a war which would lead to a lot more deaths and suffering because a war between the two superpowers of the world would most likely lead to nuclear warfare which could lead to some similar effects of chemical weapons and a massive death count along with an overwhelming injured count. This is just one reasoning for not getting militarily involved in the incident, but America and other countries should express their great concerns with the attacks and should support the the victims of the terrible event.
What do you think is a greater risk. Taking action and risking a nuclear war with Russia? Or not doing anything and possibly just letting another chemical weapon attack on civilians?
Do you think that there is a possibility that the Syrian government DIDN’T execute these chemical attacks but rather a third party that has yet to present itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fowler on Apr 13, 2018 22:41:23 GMT
President Trump has been talking the talk on twitter all week in regards to the chemical attacks on Syrian rebels. He has called out specific global political leaders for backing these attacks, and even ripped on Barack Obama in regards to his action (lack thereof) with the Syrian chemical crisis. Now it is time for The President to “walk the walk”, and take action against Assad and the Syrian government. Senator Lindsey Graham told ABC’s “This Week” that Trump must act definitively, Otherwise, the president will risk “looking weak to to Russia and Iran. It is Trump’s duty, as president, to use his power to protect the innocent Syrian people. These are innocent human lives that are at stake and president Trump has the ability to protect them. This is very similar to what President Franklin Roosevelt did in 1940. As explained in reading 23, “Roosevelt transferred destroyers to Great Britain in 1940, a year before the United States entered World War II. The president authorized the movement of U.S. troops to protect those in need. However war today is much different than it was in World War II, and despite being slightly different, the president also has the authority to send drone strikes and launch missiles in order to damage the Assad regime, and to prevent them from using illegal forms of weaponry. The presidential powers listed in the constitution completely allow President Trump to make these kind of military moves. He is The Commander and Chief and can move the military wherever he feels necessary, even without the support of congress. It is important that President Trump puts an end to Assad’s practice of using illegal gas to hurt his own people because Assad is clearly breaking a rule of war. It is illegal to use these sorts of weapons, and absolutely immoral to use them on your own civilians, especially women and children. According NPR, 80 women and children have died due to these chemical attacks, and many more will soon if Trump does not act definitely. Trump has to make the decision now, to make a move on the Assad regime. The “red line” has been crossed, and it is time to put an end to this barbaric practice of the slaying of innocent men, women, and children.
Do you really think there is any question as to who is behind these chemical attacks?
Is Senator Lindsey Graham right? Does Trump risk looking “weak” to other nations if he does not act after his reactions on Twitter?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilbert on Apr 14, 2018 0:59:46 GMT
The war in Syria is a very serious situation that involves many countries. Thousands of innocent people are being killed, even children are being harshly killed by chemical weapons. The rebels are going against Assad, but Assad is going against all of his citizens which n and children. The question is whether or not the United States should be getting involved or not to prevent these chemical attacks on innocent people. Trump will not fix this problem of chemical attacks in Syria with other chemical weapons from the United States. If the United States does get involved, they then can create more enemies because of Assad’s allies. When the Syrian war will be over is far from clear and U.S involvement may not help that, but add even more conflict. Trump says that Syria has a big price to pay, but will trying to punish Assad really help anything, or will it just make it far worse? This could lead to a bigger war, which could potentially even lead to a world war. Trump originally did want to stay out of the Syrian war so the U.S had no involvement, but that changed when Assad started using chemical weapons. Any action that the United States will take against Syria will result in further military conflict with Russia. “Russian lawmakers have warned the United States that Moscow would view an airstrike on Syria as a war crime and that it could trigger a direct U.S-Russian military clash” (Chicago Tribune). The U.S. taking action would try to help things in Syria, but in reality it would just make things much worse with not only Syria, but also other countries such as Russia. Trump openly says he will be sending missiles to Syria, which Russia plans to shoot down. Trump should not be openly talking about his military decisions because then Russia can plan to counteract any action that Trump takes. This is becoming an even more dangerous game of who is more powerful and it looks like Trump will not back down, so what is this really going to turn into?
Is it really a right move, on Trump’s part, to take action against Syria or will it just make the United States a target?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gray on Apr 14, 2018 1:23:50 GMT
@ Shaffer: If we enter the civil war with Syria it will inevitably cause problems with Russia due to Russia being an alliance to them and helping the Assad regime attack the rebels. However, that may have to be a risk we have to take in order to help save the people of Syria that are being viciously killed just to prove a point to the other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gray on Apr 14, 2018 1:28:13 GMT
@ Gilbert: while it may possibly make America a target if we include ourselves in the Syrian war, the results may be worth it. If we can help defeat the Assad regime and all the terror they're inflicting on their people such as using chemical weapons, we may very well be able to save thousands from suffering the same fate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulneix on Apr 14, 2018 1:57:05 GMT
Their always war and strife in the world but in recent news Syria has been accused again of using chemical weapons on their own people. When it comes to using chemical weapons its seen as a taboo and something should never do due to their indiscriminate devastation and because of the pacts made by countries not to use them, and when the Assad regime was accused of using them it sparked outraged over the globe. The first thing with this situation is that they have only been accused and evidence has not been provided to prove they were the ones to use them at least to the American public. This is also an area that is embroiled with conflict and the Assad regime is every unlikely to be the only one to been in possession of chemical weapons. Along with the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that they did it and that they denied the allegations why would they ever want to use chemical weapons the only thing that would keep the American military in the area. It has already been proved that America will act when it comes to things like this, and therefore to provoke the us military would been an unwise move to make even for the other major powers of the world. After all of that even if the Syrian government gassed their own people so what, even though chemical weapons are seen as an evil what does it change and is it actually any worse. When it comes to weapons there is only really the affect, range, and area of affect. It just so happens that chemical weapons are deadly and have a large area of affect. The gas may kill allot of innocent people but so do conventional firearms and bombs. When it comes to suffering; any weapon causes suffering if it doesn’t kill you and it not exactly an easy choice to chose between surviving a gas attack, bomb, or being shot; All of these options can leave lifelong side effects and leave a person in excruciating pain.
The weapons can all have the same effect on someone’s life so why should we only care if people die of something we think to be slightly worse than something else, shouldn’t we always care and shouldn’t our plan be to stop the conflict and to not jump in and start fighting ourselves leading to more deaths and more conflict?
|
|
