|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 9, 2018 11:08:08 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 Caldwell on Apr 9, 2018 23:44:26 GMT
In this civil war between Assad’s regime and the remaining Syrians in Douma, American leaders are experiencing the burden of responding quickly to Assad action but not following through with the punishments stated. Prior to the 2013 attack, in which Assad’s forces sent a chemical gas to protesting Syrians; Obama declared his stance on chemical weaponry. He stated that “if Assud used them (chemical weaponry), it would trigger an American military response” (Vox). Obama said this was a “red line” that should be crossed would result in punishment. Although, once Assad launched the chemical gas Obama was not quick to act and ultimately did not follow his “red line” threat response. With Trump coming into office in the 2016 election he stated that “We (Americans) don’t know who the rebels are”(Vox). In other words before this recent attack Trump thought that Assad ruling could be better for Syria. After the sarin gas that has killed a large amount of people Trump’s viewpoint changed. He stated that “If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line in the sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!”(NPR) Trump is therefore saying that Assad’s regime should get a punishment for crossing this “red line”. He is also declaring that this action would have never happened if Obama stayed true to his “red line” punishment. Although given this point in time President Donald Trump has not taken any formal action in response to this. He has sent missiles to the source of the chemical attack but he “is making it clear that the strike was designed as a specific punishment...not a broader effect aimed at striking Assad until he stops bombing civilians or leaves power”(Vox). Homeland Security and Counterterrorism advisors are urging Trump to act but he is the one who will decide what executive orders are made. It seems that Americans are quick to blame but when it comes to taking action we are afraid. There needs to be international action when the “red line” is crossed because Americans have spoken and you can not take away what you have said. I couldn’t agree more with the statement that Senator Lindsey Graham said. She stated that “Trump needs to follow through with his tweets or risk looking weak to Russia and Iran”(NPR). I value this quote because if Americans do not hold to their statements Russia and Iran will continue to act, for they see that there will be no true punishment for their actions. Overall this could lead to other nations testing the legitimacy of our nation’s words.
Question(s): Do you believe that one reason why Obama and Trump (as of Today) are not taking action to cleary target the Assad regime, is that we as a nation could then go to war with them? Or it is for other reasons, this is already a complex battle, what do you think the main reason is for why the Presidents are afraid to make any direct action toward the Assad regime?
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgeway. on Apr 10, 2018 22:45:31 GMT
This is messier than a school lunch; the poor imitation of chicken pot-pie (I assume it’s a pot-pie, with the biscuits and chicken and gravy?) that is served every month, slop tossed in a boat and hoping for the best. Sadly, gratefully, we aren’t here to talk about school lunches. Moving on.
The President in wartimes is often faced with tricky-dicky decisions. He can take an approach like Lincoln, throwing whoever he wished in jail because, hey, it’s war! Imagine the Twitter firestorm that would have erupted from that. Lincoln’s behavior, despite our modern Daniel Day Lewis image (fantastic movie by the way), was wild, yet his Congress agreed with him, allowing most of his decisions to past.
He was a wartime president, coming into office knowing what would be happening. War, in its essence, has changed: no guns, bayonets (cavalry winning a naval battle; wild story).
So, we, as a world, have entered a new era of war, complete with (for lack of a better word) BIG chemical weapons as our technology evolves. You can destroy a nation without ever setting foot in it. A chemical death is not a quick, painless one, which everyone is entitled to. Chemical weapons don’t discriminate either; civilians and soldiers alike are drawn into the haze (“Chemical Weapons Background”). They’re…nasty. I’m not going into details. Watch a documentary.
President Trump, continuing to show the energy the Founders imagined, has tweeted out that Syria “will pay a big price”. He acted on the aforementioned “red line”; chemical weapons are morally repulsive weapons of mass destruction. Whatever group in Syria carried this attack out deserves their punishment. The metaphorical redline laid down by Obama was jumped over, and it wasn’t a redline Syria was not aware of it; it’s international law. America did not create some secret policy and not let anyone else in on the secret. Syria — and I used Syria here broadly to talk about all the conflict within the borders, not saying ‘Animal Assad’ is the mastermind behind the attack — should have assumed using immoral chemical weapons would come with a backfire by any world power, and hey, big brother America has a role to fill (even if “middle east” does not fall under the Monroe Doctrine or the dismantled Roosevelt Corollary, but that’s for another class), a beacon of morality thousands of miles away from the conflict. Allowing Syria to come away unscatched would open a Pandora’s box, showing to other equally volatile groups that WMD are just dandy! There’s no reparations on it, let’s keep rolling with it.
If Actions in Syria are carried out carefully, leaving civilians far out of the situation, I believe Trump (and France; wonder how long that’ll last) should enforce the statement of “[holding] the Assad regime accountable for its ‘continued human rights abuses’”; this is a disgusting violation of human life, that we, as such a focal nation, cannot allow to continue. Kumbuya and s'mores around a fire pit is unobtainable, people are too horrible to ever bring about a peace, yet if there’s a glimmer of relief for those affected by these violations, it should be taken.
Questions: Do these chemical attacks on Syrians change our opinions about the refugee situation? and
With Russia buddying with Syria, is this is a prediction of an unstable future? Topple too many dominos, and the whole set up falls. Will intervening in Syria anger Russia against us? More interconnected via social media than ever before, is there a clean way out of this situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by McDermott on Apr 11, 2018 2:46:40 GMT
It is no secret that President Trump uses Twitter quite often to verbalize his opinion about political situations as well as the occasional blurb of further insight on the topic itself. When the President took to Twitter about the recent chemical attacks in Syria, it was easy to conclude that he was unhappy with the situation and that he wants to take action. An article from Vox states, “President Trump has vowed to make a decision on whether to use force in the next 24 to 48 hours, even calling out Russian President Vladimir Putin by name for his support of Assad.” Though this as well as the “Big price to pay” statement was made, President Trump has been known to go off on a Twitter rampage and spit out comments that he does not necessarily mean, as well as make promises that he may not keep. I do believe, however, that this should not be one of those times. Something needs to be done about this, and the President’s thoughts are in the right place. Sources explain that “Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron agreed to hold the Assad regime accountable for its ‘continued human rights abuses.’” It was also stated that they "agreed to exchange information on the nature of the attacks and coordinate a strong, joint response (NPR).” The role that the President is playing in this situation as of now, is the role that he should continue to pursue. The effort being made to take action alongside allies in this dangerous situation is encouraging. What is not encouraging is the President’s motive to strike yet again with more missles. The fact that the use of chemical weapons is still an available method of attack is sickening. They create widespread damage in a way that conventional weapons can not. The devastating effects of the chemical attacks in Syria are deadly not only to soldiers, but to innocent bystanders as well. So should a “red line in the sand” be drawn as a result? Will that really do anything at all? The NPR web page displayed the President’s tweets along with their article, showing one that reads, “If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago!” I believe that drawing a said “red line on the sand” is not going to enforce the termination of chemical weapons. The president decided to take action last year, and the nation watched as the US fired missiles at a Syrian military airfield. Look at where we are now. An article from the Washington Post states that, “It was a rare public admission that despite last year's U.S. military action, chemical weapons attacks on civilians were still a recurring feature of the Syrian conflict.” We opened Pandora’s box… there’s no going back now.
Do you think there is any way of terminating the use of chemical weapons all together? How?
|
|
|
|
Post by Neely on Apr 11, 2018 17:10:27 GMT
Early in his presidency, Trump knew whom to blame for the chemical weapons that were used in Syria. In addition, Trump believes he knows how to “handle” it, as said in a New York Times article. The wicked gas attacks by President Bashar al-Assad on the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun last April happened because President Barack Obama did not do anything to enforce his cut off line against banning arms, which in a way “triggers” President Trump to now do something with the situation and try to get the best outcome as possible.The international outrage and sparked by the use of chemical weapons in the recent Syria attack has also fuelled debate over why a taboo exists on such weapons. Since the attack in 2013, many other attacks have occured, which American officials and human rights groups blamed on Bashar al-Assad. In recent attacks that were reported according to an NPR article, chlorine has been involved rather than lethal gases. According to an article from The Week, Richard Price, who is a political scientist at the University of British Columbia told the Washington Post refrencing chemical weapons that, “The primary idea is that they are indiscriminate and an inherent threat to civilian populations.” In reading this statement, it led to complete agreement with Price that yes, chemical weapons are more indisriminate and deadly than convential weapons. Brought up in multiple conversations and interviews, Trump says US “cannot allow” Syrian chemical weapons attacks to occur anymore in the future and it needs to be brought to a hault. He later goes on to explain in a CNN article, that "We are very concerned, when a thing like that can happen, this is about humanity.” Trump’s “Big Price” warning for this call to action is his belief that everyone is going to pay a price and that also Vladimir Putin will also, according to Bloomberg. In Section 23 article from class, it states that one reason for the increasse in a presidents power in war is that Americans have always expected their exectuives to act vigorusly and to address the nation’s problems, which President Donald Trump has no problem with voicing his stance and ideas on Twitter or social media for any fact. In addition other reasons are for the enlargement of executve authority and that the constitutional powers of the presodent are stated in broad terms. Concluding this, it all comes down to powers whether through the growth through authority of executive orders or through various responsibilities.
Questions to Consider
Should we (United States) stay involved with Syria to replace Assad?
Should we stay in Syria because of Assad’s chemical weapons attacks?
Why are the deaths in Syria of over 1,000 people by chemical weapons deemed more horrific than the killing of 100,000 people by conventional artillery?
|
|
|
|
Post by Neely on Apr 11, 2018 18:14:51 GMT
@mcdermott
In response to your question that you posed at the end of your post, I do not believe that there will be an "end all" or termination in the use of chemical weapons. In saying this, if they have the weaponry now they are going to use them and along with that if they find what they may deem a "success" in using weapons such as chemical ones in defending in killing off an enemy, then most certainly they'll continue to use them no doubt. In essence I believe its a matter of whether we can terminate the chemical weapons without being targeted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Apr 11, 2018 21:24:44 GMT
The US needs to plan its next moves with Syria carefully. President Trump being the Commander over the US military has the ability to declare the next military action. The President’s quickness to tweet is, perhaps, a mistake on his part as now action has to be taken soon and too hasty of action could spell further issue. When a political leader says that action will be done, it becomes necessary for such action to happen as being unable to deliver will weaken political strength and legitimacy. President Trump’s relationship with tweeting calls into question the political strength of the nation as there is split whether people feel his tweets are serious or not. A nation will not hold its standing as a superpower if it is all talk and no bite, something that could potentially be dangerous. Threatening another superpower is a serious thing that puts both nations into a state of entrapment. Russia and the US stand on opposing sides of the Syrian civil war, with Russia, while condemning chemical weapon use, supporting Assad’s regime. Russia was tasked removing chemical weapon supplies from Syria, clearly, they have not done their job. Now any attack from the US on Syria will be viewed by Russia as an attack on them. America has destabilized the Middle East before, with our execution of Saddam Hussein the former President of Iraq. Pushing a conflict further with the nation of Syria will only contribute to the destabilization of the Middle East. The only reason nations humor the dictators within the Middle East is because of its natural resources and strategic geographic location for military operations. America is caught in the middle because of our contempt with being the world's policemen. Inaction will only lead to the slaughter of more civilians and prolong the civil war but action may create another power vacuum and or start a war with a larger nation. Something neither Russia nor the US wants, considering power vacuums are what created the issues in the first place and war is costly. Syria has been warned and the have not heeded the warnings, their will be consequences for that, there should be. However, whatever nation acts first to punish Syria will feel heat from the other nation. The question remains how do you overthrow a dictator without angering his allies, destabilizing the region further, and losing your control over another nation? It all comes down to which the nation deems most important for preservation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Apr 11, 2018 21:32:36 GMT
@mcdermott
Your closing line is the best summary of the Syrian conflict and conflict in the Middle East in general. Our involvement will only get more strenuous but disjointing ourselves will be just a strenuous. The US has placed itself in a spot where, the nation will condemn Assad but fears that someone else worse will fill the vacuum of his absence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Apr 11, 2018 22:28:36 GMT
@caldwell
Political leaders are scared to do anything about Assad because of Middle Eastern Stability. The dictator Saddam Hussein was executed by the US but this is largely considered a failure because even though he was a dictator, he kept Iraq in line. The power vacuum Hussein's death left contributed to the current instability now. If this happens again in Syria someone much worse could fill the gap. Someone that could be more brutal or damage US interest with the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weber on Apr 12, 2018 0:43:50 GMT
Although trump has gotten himself into a sticky situation with this controversy, it still is something that I deem to be necessary. His most recent tweet “get ready Russia, because they will be coming,” was a very untactful strategy, and quite frankly making the controversy between the U.S, Russia, and Assad much worse, as well as his other tweets posing that chemical weapons was planned for action in the first place. Though what he wants is something that is helpful and just the right thing to do because it is sending the Assad regime a message to not continue their use of chemical weapons. Although it is not confirmed nor is their enough tangible evidence it was the Syrian government that did this, there is compelling interest from where the location is, as said in bbc news, that the chemical weapon use was used in “the last rebel-held town in the Eastern Ghouta region.” The Assad regime has been in war with Anti- Assad rebels since 2011, and as Vox says “Assad has used various kinds of chemical weapons dozens of times,” insinuating the fact that chemical weapons have been used on the rebels before. This shows pretty compelling evidence that the Syrian government would want to tear down the last rebel territory in the Eastern Ghouta region to be able to reduce the amount of people against them, and using chemical weapons is not out of their comfort zone to do so. As well as that as cited by bbc news, that activists from the Violations Documentation Center reported “two separate incidents of bombs believed to contain toxic substances being dropped by Syrian Air Force.” This statement gives more evidence to the Syrian government being the reason for this grander scale of chemical weapon destruction, and it should be dealt with accordingly. Also, the argument of being discriminatory with dealing with chemical weapons instead of conventional weapons is absurd. Almost every nation signed the International Chemical Weapons Convention, agreeing that it is too heinous to use for war or in general. Which is true, it is more heinous than conventional weapons in the fact that it provides more suffering in using them to kill others. Sarin and Chlorine gas both cause burning of the eyes, nose, and throat, and cause fluid to build up in the lungs, causing suffocation. In the verge article, it says that “most people who die from chlorine gas exposure die of suffocation in a day.” It seems much more terrifying to think about people having to suffocate for a whole day until they die instead of a quick death that involves no suffering. To be able to stop this from continuing is a measure that should be taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Apr 12, 2018 2:28:39 GMT
Chemical weapons have long been a shunned form of warfare that is banned from use. However, as proven by history this has been ignored time and time again. Syria is now possibly using chemical weapons against its own people in their ongoing civil war. President Trump has promised that missiles “will be coming”. There are many different beliefs on what should be done. Trump wants to solve the problems with missiles but according to Washington Post there is a concern of “whether (a military strike) will have enough linkage to holistic efforts to leverage any real change”. Melissa Dalton, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies recommends that we should mobilize a coalition to respond with our allies in the region, and attempt to investigate and understand what is going on. This is more likely to work than firing missiles at Syria. Instead of just blowing something up, by joining multiple nations together, finding the origin of the problem, and finding a way to fix it. The problem of chemical weapons is not one that can be left be. Chemical weapons can cause serious physical and psychological problems. Unlike conventional weapons, at least in most cases, chemical weapons can cause slow, painful and inhumane deaths or even maim victims. Because of how hard chemical weapons are to control, it is hard to keep them contained to the intended target, which usually brings harm to unintended victims that end up being innocent civilians. All of these factors together are part of the reason why chemical weapons are considered so taboo. As decided by the world, these weapons are too inhumane to be used in warfare. And if Syria has been using chemical weapons against its people, then it has crossed the metaphorical “red line” and there is need for international intervention. If the use of chemical weapons is deemed inhumane, then it is inhumane to allow them to be used against the people of Syria. If this was happening to anyone, they would want it to be stopped so why wouldn’t the outside world intervene. No matter what is done, a solution needs to be decided upon and it needs to be enacted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Callihan on Apr 12, 2018 2:53:25 GMT
The United States should intervene when it comes to the Assad regime using chemical weapons on people. In no way am I saying that we need to arm Syria or even fight their battle for them, I do not think this would solve anything but put our weapons against us yet another time. People are people though, and this is not the right thing to do no matter who you are in a war with because after all this is a terrible form of suffocation and no one should endure that, especially civilians that have nothing to do with what is going on. What makes the use of chemical weapons so scary is one could have no clue what is happening to them. With many people it is not even wished upon their worse enemy. You also never know what if one day it was the United States who got hit. Especially if we were a country like Syria with no “good” leadership(if that is what you would like to call it.) It is important that the United States one of the most powerful countries in the world does something to try and stop it from happening again. It has both physical and psychological effects to ALL people alike. However I do believe that Trump’s tweet is so childish and so unprofessional I just wish he would stop and instead of just tweet he should be taking action. In this day and era I am sure we all know someone who loves to hide behind their phone and say something but does nothing face to face or puts it to action. Like, Jonathan Tucker wrote in his 2006 book War of Nerves that the stigma against chemical weapons “duplicitous use of poison by the weak to defeat the strong without a fair physical fight." Therefore, I am sure that if we intervened with the use of chemical weapons they would not fight back against the United States because they would not want the repercussions that come along with it. Such as one of the best militaries in the world as well as the allies we have backing us.
|
|
|
|
Post by AYSLYN DUFFY on Apr 12, 2018 17:44:21 GMT
The U.S. has long been a powerhouse when it comes to war. Though the United States itself is not “formally” at war with another nation, the military tends to step in when deemed necessary. The President is now faced with a difficult decision: take action, or stay out of it? It is assumed (and HIGHLY likely) that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack on a rebel held town. Syria has been at war with itself for seven years now, with the conflict being between the government and Syrian citizens. This type of attack has taken place before, notably during the Obama presidency. Vox quotes Obama saying that if Assad used more chemical weapons, an American military response would be triggered. It seems as though Assad was ready to call Obama’s bluff, and crossed the “red line”. Of course, Obama did not follow through with the actions he swore to take if Assad used such heinous war tactics (which is quite funny considering we are talking about WAR, and that in itself is quite heinous).
With Donald Trump now as president, there seems to be a lot of question as to how he will respond. He himself tweeted about Obama’s failure to show strength and follow through, saying that if he had acted accordingly the current situation could have been avoided. He has directly threatened the Syrian government, Russia, and all other Assad allies.
“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart’! You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills people and enjoys it!” -@realdonaldtrump
With Assad obviously failing to heed previous warnings, I believe it is time to take action. War has changed drastically in the last century. Rather than soldiers fighting on the battlefield, it is more likely for weapons of mass destruction to be used. Chemical weapons are meant to inflict pain and fear, and them being used on innocents is inhumane. However, Trump’s first response being a tweet seems a tad ridiculous. He must put serious thought into how he is going to intervene. Promising missile strikes now puts him in a sticky situation, just as Obama’s “red line” did. And with the allies backing Assad, Trump must take into consideration what consequences could come about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry on Apr 12, 2018 19:44:43 GMT
In this specific situation there is no “right answer” of how the President should act due to the varying interpretations of executive power. In response to the civil war in Syria Barack Obama said, “It has been one of the hardest issues that I’ve faced as president” (vox). A historically “strong” President would react by sending troops to Syria or another military force. A historically “weak” President with a strict interpretation of the Constitution would leave the decision up to Congress. President Trump is currently taking the role of a “strong” President by calling for missile strikes on Syria. However this action could be detrimental when the bigger picture is considered. According to the Chicago Tribune, “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.” This warning shows that missle strikes will not just affect Syria but it will also affect America’s relations with other various countries who are allies with Syria. The Guardian touched on the suspected chemical attack by quoting France’s prime minister as saying, “The use of these weapons is not neutral; it says things about the regime and our reaction to the use of these weapons will say things about who we are.” The article also asserts that France is supportive of America’s prospective military action and will implement attacks of their own by “launching strikes to destroy the chemical weapons stock”(The Guardian). The chemical weapons used in Syria have crossed figurative “red lines” for many leaders. Chemical weapons differ from conventional weapons because of the internal effects that the chemicals cause. Although all types of weapons cause death, most conventional weapons like guns in most cases leave bullets that can be removed or wounds that can be treated. Chemical weapons on the other hand can disrupt the nervous system, painfully blister the skin, create permanent lung damage, or cause convulsions. The effects on the victim of chemical weapons are usually internal whereas the effects of conventional weapons are external and easily recognizable to the eye. The territory of chemical weapon use in war is taboo and generally off the table for most countries but Syria is challenging the use of these weapons and how the world responds will change all future wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baker on Apr 13, 2018 4:03:19 GMT
Trump is right to say that there should be a “big price” to pay for what syria has done. It honestly just amazes me that someone could be so evil do something like this. Stuff like this has been going on in Syria for a while, and I feel like it has been almost pushed under the rug. It is one of those touchy subjects that no one wants to talk about which is understandable, I mean who wants to talk about something this depressing. As stated in the USA Today article chemical weapons are used mostly for their terror affects. They are banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and any country that uses them are supposed to face intense political fallout which would include foreign military responses. Former President Obama said that if any chemical weapons were used US intervention would be used, but that failed to happen when this same incident occured in 2013. About a year ago the Assad regime conducted a gas attack on a town that killed dozens, and injured many more. President Trump ordered a missile attack on a syrian air base because of that. With that information I’d say that Trump is more than likely going to do something about what has happened. “Perhaps Assad felt that given Trump’s reported desire to leave Syria, the regime could conduct illegal chemical attacks without cost.” This quote also from the USA today article makes a very good point because if he said that we were backing down it’d seem like there could be a free for all. At the same time I feel like this possibly could have been done to stir the pot a little, you know what I mean? Assad could have been trying to see what would happen if he pulled something like that again. I really hope that Trump does something about this because it isn’t okay at all. Can you imagine having to live in a place like this? We complain a lot about living in the United States, but how about having such a terrible person in charge of us.. It is kinda coincidental that the night before this happened I came across a video on twitter of the babies that are born today, still suffering from the effects of poisonous gas used in World War 1. The birth defects have traveled down through 3 generations, and these people live in a place where thankfully they get the right care. All of this going on over there is absolutely horrible, and I really hope that we are able to put a stop to it. No one ever deserves to go through something like that, and I hate to see it affecting these innocent people’s lives.
|
|
