Michael James Dudich XXXXXVI
Guest
|
Post by Michael James Dudich XXXXXVI on Apr 14, 2018 2:13:27 GMT
The Assad regime has been accused of multiple chemical weapon attacks in the past and now recently they attacked Douma which is the last rebel-held enclave in eastern Ghouta, near the capital Damascus. The alleged attack comes amidst days of heavy bombardment by government forces in an effort to assert control over the town. President Trump once again used twitter as his own personal platform to say that the regime has a “Big price to pay”. He also held russia and Iran responsible for these attacks. Should the united states get more heavily involved in this conflict. Supposably we have crossed the red line that obama had laid out for us. Members of congress, homeland security, and the counterterrorism adviser thomas bossert have even gone as far to say“that all options are on the table, and would not rule out launching a missile in response.”. Even the president is trying to keep a strong demeanor by saying “needs to follow through with his tweets or risk looking "weak" to Russia and Iran.”. In this time of uncertainty is it necessary that we take action and cause even more death and hardship to the war torn east. Even if we rise up and decide to rebel against Assad and there inhuman actions there still be a big cast to pay. The lives of more innocent people. Even if there was an international response Assad will still continue these alleged chemical attacks, and as long as they are back up by russia and Iran(supposively) then why would they stop there actions. “President Donald Trump has ordered airstrikes on Syria as punishment for its chemical weapons attack last week in the town of Douma, which killed at least 42 people — including a number of children.”. That last statement shows you just how the innocent will continue to die. If we get involved in this war we will just bring more blood shed to the innocents.
|
|
Michael James Dudich XXXXXVI
Guest
|
Post by Michael James Dudich XXXXXVI on Apr 14, 2018 2:15:29 GMT
My question to you is will this ever end? It seems as no matter what we do innocent die. So in a situation like this what is the best coarse of action?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lindey on Apr 14, 2018 2:44:36 GMT
@max
They can somewhat heal if they really strived to make changes and to prevent situations like this from happening again. Assad needs to get out and needs to not be there to be able to reach the peace that they are looking for, the only thing that he is dong is keeping them farther away from the peace that they want. He is also destroying their chances of peace because he is harming them again and if he did it twice he would have no trouble doing it another time. They many never be able to reach the peace that they are looking for and truly need, but if they can get Assad away from them they may be able to move towards a more positive direction and to not have to have the fear of being hurt by someone who is supposed to protect them. In reality it would be hard to heal from a tragedy like this one, innocent people are dying and they are living in fear and heartache, they will never be able to forget what they see and feel through times like these.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lindey on Apr 14, 2018 2:54:53 GMT
@hinchberger
The greater risk would be the not doing anything and possibly just letting another chemical weapon attack on civilians happen again. Someone needs to be able to do something to help these innocent people. Just put these people in your shoes, wouldn't you want help if you were facing something like this. When hasn't this country taken a risk. It is time to act and do what is needed to help someone who is struggling to stay on their feet. We need to be able to help point them in the right direction and to help them stay positive in times of trouble. Besides if we take action this may make them fear and not do it again, better to take action and it not work completely then to not and feel like it is your fault if something like this would happen again. Also I do not believe that it is a possibility that the Syrian government did not execute these chemical attacks, they have done it once before so it is not like they are unable to do it again. If they did what they wanted the first time then it would even be easier for them to do it a second time.
|
|
|
|
Post by PierceL on Apr 14, 2018 3:12:50 GMT
In light of the recent chemical weapon attacks by Syria, President Trump should NOT attack Syria. It might be not his style to not take action, but with the warning from Syria’s greatest ally, Russia, doesn’t seem like the greatest idea. As the President of the United States, he should try to mend foreign policy, not threaten them. For example, “Similar images have been coming out of Douma this time around. And Trump’s foreign policy advisory team, very much including Bolton, is notably hawkish. So it’s very possible — not inevitable, just possible — that there will be some kind of American military response in the coming days.” From the vox article, It explains that his foreign advisory team should be trying to fix it, not trying to start something. While on the topic of chemical weapons, they have been the main cause of this problem. Chemical weapons were put first in place during WWI, when, “In 1915, the German military used chlorine gas against British, French, and Canadian troops in the Belgian town of Ypres, marking the first large-scale modern chemical weapons attack.” From the chemical weapon article, is says that they usually cause burns, or excruciating pain and long deaths. They are much worse than normal weapons, because if you get him by a bullet, you’ll most likely die when you get hit, almost painless. But, if you breathe one of these chemicals in, it’s long and painful. They can wipe out people quickly and more effective, making them a problem for everyone. But, as I wrote my response, Trump has went ahead and launched his missiles. So, even from the warning for using the missiles didn’t stop Trump. From what reports have been posted so for, it seems that US, and its allies might have been involved. It said 13 missiles have been shot down, and there was video evidence of this missile attack. Sadly, I believe that this could cause even more damage than the chemical weapons could do. Some questions for this now that the missiles were launched, is what kind of repercussions could we expect from Syria, or its allies? Would you expect something to come out of this, or just another flex of American power?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Antal on Apr 14, 2018 3:24:51 GMT
In the Syrian chemical attack forms of chemical weapons were used. After many deaths were caused from this type of weaponry, it raises the question whether chemical weapons are “worse” than conventional weapons. In some ways chemical weapons can be better, but when morals come into play these weapons are more sick the more you know what they do to the victims. One of the gases used was phosgene, which leads to lung damage and suffocation, another very lethal tactic would be the use of mustard gas, which causes chemical burns and can result in a very painful death. These grotesque forms of warfare do not compare to conventional weapons including the development of the machine gun and the heavy use of firearms that have changed the way of warfare forever. Although chemical weapons seem to be an easier method in modern warfare today it is still a “worse” method than conventional weapons such as heavy artillery. Syrian president assad Assad done what many people have feared for decades. He has begun to utilize chemical weapons on his own people. Previously, Barack Obama knew of the chemical weapon use in Syria and said that Assad was going too far in this situation,but President Obama also decidednot to take action in this case. Now, Donald Trump agrees that president of Assad is going toofar. Unlike Obama, President Trump has decided to take action. As an example, President Trump decided for the United States alone to carry out airstrikes against the Assad air force base that is responsible for the attack. Although some may argue that extensive American intervention in foreign issues is not the best way to solve global conflict, there are circumstances where such intervention is necessary. When innocent lives are at stake and the international governments and organizations are in questionable , powerful nations must stop them. Foreign intervention should not be abused. Foreign intervention becomes a problem when nations act with selfish motives . Foreign intervention should only be used in the interest of preventing/helping a global or international emergencies. The issue of chemical weapons - as it continues to continue with controversy - is an undeniable issue for American intervention. In the end, the use of them in warfare has seen measures as early as 1925 . Although missile strikes certainly send a message, the use of destructive weapons is questionable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Apr 14, 2018 3:49:26 GMT
With the recent use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria, it has sparked a large problem with President Trump. After the attack President Trump stated that he will provide a response on what the “big price” he previously mentioned was about. The use of chemical warfare is considered taboo because of the fact that the targets cannot sense that the chemical weapon is upon them and the chemicals can and will kill anyone in its path whether those people were the intended targets or not. Because of that, the use of chemical weapons can be considered a “cheap shot” by the users because it leaves their victims with no chance of protecting themselves. President Trump has had input on the topic of the Syrian war since 2013, even before he was campaigning for president. When the first chemical weapons were used in Syria and President Obama at the time was threatening an attack if a “red line” was crossed, Trump tweeted, “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK. IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!.” So by looking at this it shows how much his views have obviously changed from persuading to not attack to now ordering an air strike on Syria. President Trump made an interesting decision to get involved because his decision to attack could go two ways, it could either turn out good and the chemical weapon use will be stopped but it could also go in a dangerously bad way and get the U.S. in a dispute. President Trump does have the right idea with good intentions to try and stop the unnecessary use of chemical weapons especially from a government type power. It also helps that Britain and France are on assisting the U.S. on the fight against chemical weapons according to the New York Times. The question here is besides sending a “strong message” to Assad, what could be any other good outcome from attacking Syria?
|
|
|
|
Post by PierceL on Apr 14, 2018 22:47:06 GMT
@malinski Responding to your question of possible good outcomes from this, and I would like to think there is none. If we attack Syria, which we did, it would cause Syrains to possible attack our foreign bases, causing a big conflict. Another outcome is with Russia. They said not to attack Syria, but we did anyways. Russia has always been a strong enemy of ours, so provoking them is not good.
|
|
|
|
Post by PierceL on Apr 14, 2018 22:57:00 GMT
@michealdudich I personally believe the best course of action is to let the Syrians deal with it themselves. Yes, it might cause more innocent people to die, but countries like the US, and Russia, etc. are just fueling the fire for more conflict. If we do the bombsing, which we did, it just could cause Syria or its allies to retaliate, by using more chemical weapons, or having a war between the allies, and the Syrian civil war. The only thing to do, or the best thing to do in this situation, though sounds dark, would be to let them deal with it themselves. The more we get involved, the worse it gets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antal on Apr 15, 2018 17:56:17 GMT
@piercel I believe that President Trump's actions could strain our relationship with Russia. In a CNN article I found, a Russian Security Council representative remarked that our country, the United Kingdom, and France "engaged in diplomacy of mythmaking, hypocrisy and falsehoods" (CNN). These accusations certainly do not bode well for our country's relationship with Russia. However, at the same time, I can understand the argument of those that believe President Trump's actions are merely "another flex of U.S. power."
|
|
|
|
Post by Antal on Apr 15, 2018 18:03:01 GMT
@dudich There may be no "best course of action" when you look at this horrific situation. Like you mentioned, if the U.S. decides to intervene, then it is likely that more innocent people will die. However, if the U.S. decides to sit back and let Assad continue with these inhuman actions, then it looks like the U.S. condones this type of behavior. Ultimately, I believe these are the kind of difficult decisions that must be made in a war-like scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by burnett on Apr 15, 2018 20:17:45 GMT
@ max
Syria has faced a lot in the past four and a half years. It is going to take a long time for them to be okay again. What happened last week injuring so many women and children is horrible. I hope different countries act on this to prevent this from ever happening again. Innocent people should not have to go through this on a daily basis. Trump who is willing to take action, and blow up the chemical weapons plants is showing how much this has affected not only there but other countries as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by burnett on Apr 15, 2018 20:21:30 GMT
@michael D
There isn’t really a good step to approach what is happening there currently. This has gone on for over four years and no one is trying to put a stop to it. Last week Trump announced that he is going to blow up the chemical plants. After what happened this is the action to take. No one should ever have to go through what these innocent people went through, with severe burns and breathing problems. Even if there is no “good way” to take action Trump is doing everything he can to help those people who are hurt, so this does not happen again.
|
|
|
|
Post by mulneix on Apr 15, 2018 22:39:39 GMT
@dudich
It is very unlikely that the cycle of death war and destruction will ever end. when conflict ends in one area it starts somewhere else. The best solution to avoid deaths would be to negotiate but this still doesn't work and the irrationality of humans will keep wars going for many years if not for the entire existence of humans.
|
|
|
|
Post by mulneix on Apr 15, 2018 22:51:20 GMT
L. PierceGetting rid off him could lead to peace or more conflict since their is more than just Syrian troops in the area their could still be fights between other nations, and you would have to replace Assad with someone who is not as bad as him and there still is not any guarantee that they could make things any better.
|
|
