|
|
Post by Hinchberger on Apr 15, 2018 23:57:13 GMT
@gray's response to @gilbert:
Yes I agree that if the United States were to get involved we have the potential to save thousands of lives from chemical attacks by defeating the Assad regime but if we do get involved we run the risk of our military and possible our citizens being chemically attack or we risk an even bigger thing which would be World War III. Where instead of a few thousand civilians are killed there could be an unthinkable death toll due to the fact that America and Russia could eventually go to nuclear weapon war where death and suffering is far greater than that of a chemical attack.
P.S. I am not saying that some lives matter more than others I am just stating the fact that an overall death count could be greater if we got involved in the Syrian conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hinchberger on Apr 16, 2018 0:11:22 GMT
@michael James Dudich XXXXXVI original response questions:
No I personally do not think that humans as a hole will ever reach the point where conflicts do not lead to the deaths of innocent people. There is no "best" course of action because if america does nothing then innocent civilians die, but if we get involved we risk a world war where the death count could be substantially higher. Either way people die we just have to decide if it is worth it to get involved.
P.S. I am not saying that some lives matter more than others I am just stating the fact that an overall death count could be greater if we got involved in the Syrian conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Helzlsouer on Apr 16, 2018 0:40:34 GMT
Re: Mulneix
From your questions personally if a type of weapon is considered bad enough for majority of people on earth to deem it not able to be used, then it probably should not be used for the best interest of everyone, although yes these people are still dying and it should be stopped the fact is the method of killing makes it ruthless. Also inevitably this will lead to more conflict eventually ,but it is president trumps decision to find out how much intervention is possible with the least amount of conflict and if it is even worth getting involved in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Helzlsouer on Apr 16, 2018 0:48:54 GMT
Re: Dudich
In a situation like this considering corruption will always exist it will never end no matter where in the world it happens it will happen somewhere. With that being said the best possible actions that you can take would be trying to help civilians steer clear of dangerous situations while trying to stop the corruption that is happening. On top of that trying our best as a country to prevent as many of these types of situations as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Pierce on Apr 16, 2018 0:56:49 GMT
@gilbert
We could debate for years over if trump acted out of his areas of power but The United states will not become a target. Russia was just bluffing and Trump called it when he sent the missiles. If Russia was to do something it would have already happened and they do not want a war with the United States because in all reality they are a weak country and only have the appearance of power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Pierce on Apr 16, 2018 1:03:55 GMT
@shaffer
Who is the enemy in this civil war? If we openly attack Assad we have forced Russia into direct conflict which is not what either one of us countries want. If we attack Assad's enemies then we damage relations with most of the other Arab states. If we attack the Kurds who are apparently enemies to both Assad and the Rebels, we strike down what we were 200 years ago. So given all this there is no clean way to enter the situation so we might as well dive head first into the "pool"
|
|
|
|
Post by Fowler on Apr 16, 2018 1:37:12 GMT
@shaffer
Well Jake, personally, I believe that striking the Syrian Govenment is the correct path for president Trump, as it should stunt most of the pain and suffering that the civilians are feeling. And thankfully I can say that President Trump did just that. The bombs struck right in the heart of the chemical weapons manufacturing plants, and did a number on Assad’s ability to hurt the people. I can also say that yes, it did cause problems with Russia. They are already calling out the U.S., saying that what we did feels “threatening” to them and that there would be “conveniences” according to Vox. We will see if there is more of a response from the Russians over then next few weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fowler on Apr 16, 2018 1:49:12 GMT
@gillbert
I do agree that it is quite rediculous the things that Trump tweets, and I also agree that he definitely should not inform his Twitter following about his military plans. This is one of Trumps biggest downfalls as president, he simply cannot keep quiet. However, personally I don’t believe that this will cause militaristic conflict with russia, it will more likely result tweeting back and forth arguing about whose hands are bigger. It’s unliely that anyone on earth would attempt to all out attack the U.S. as a whole, we are just too powerful. Nevertheless, both countries will continue to be on edge for the next few weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by T Donaldson on Apr 16, 2018 2:48:41 GMT
@ Pierce
Syria is a war torn country and has been for the last 8 years roughly. President Assad clearly cannot bind Syria together and their will always be fighting in that country. It also doesn't help that missiles were sent over destroying more parts making it more war torn.
@fowler
The chemical attacks could possibly be a false flag for the US to stay in Syria. These attacks happened right after President Trump talked about pulling out of Syria. Assad does not want us there and it doesn't make sense for him to attack his people knowing that we will stay. This has happened before and the US seems too quick to jump the gun. The US needs to take a step back sometimes and look at the situation better. Luckily, Russia or Syria did not counter attack and all seems to be well currently.
|
|
Michael James Dudich XXXXXVI
Guest
|
Post by Michael James Dudich XXXXXVI on Apr 16, 2018 4:38:44 GMT
@max P
I couldn't agree more, the fact that these missiles can do a lot more damage then the gas is insane. We are just causing more death and destruction. This was not a good move by president trump.
@michael A
The Chemical weapons used in the attacks arnt as lethal as conventional weapons bu that really isn't the point, Chemical weapons are used purely to kill, not to take down something of importance, it is purely used to kill everything in its path which makes it a very important issue in regards to what weapons we shouldn't use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Apr 16, 2018 5:07:03 GMT
@cole I agree with you on the fact that President Trump did the right thing in trying to intervene, however by bombing Syria, he has crossed a point of no return. I say this because when Obama was in office, he threatened that there would be actions taken against Assad, but instead he cut a deal with Russia so he didn't have to get involved, so by Trump following though with his threat shows that he is a force to be reckoned with and will not let anyone tell him otherwise, but he has now set a standard for himself on following though with large threats such as the bombing of Syria.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Apr 16, 2018 5:14:49 GMT
@lennon There could be two different kinds of repercussions from this missile attack, from the rebel side, they could be grateful that there is another country willing to help the minorities and give them the help that they have been asking for over the last 7 years. But, there could be the bad repercussions from the Assad regime along with Russia because they are close allies. So, Russia and Assad could come back and try to do something to an American base where they could inflict a lot of damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davis on Apr 16, 2018 10:29:32 GMT
@malinski There really isn't any good outcomes from president trump attacking Syria. Most likely Asssad will still do what he is doing now and trump taking action could spark conflict with Russia who is a world superpower.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davis on Apr 16, 2018 10:34:45 GMT
@fowler replying to @gilbert I agree that tweeting is one of trumps biggest downfalls but it most likely will not cause a bigger problem. They are just tweets so why would Russia attack the US, a superpower, for tweets but they may start conflict for the US bombing Syria.
|
|
