|
|
Post by valera on Apr 15, 2018 17:27:37 GMT
@mcilwain
Dealing with this issue without bloodshed is unlikely. Striking a peaceful agreement with hostile nations/groups that have access to destructive weapons is not an easy task. Even if such an agreement was met, the fact still remains that countless lives have already been lost. Also there is nothing stopping governments and other groups from breaking that agreement or repeating the chaos with newfound technology that proves to be more efficient, easily produced, and deadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by valera on Apr 15, 2018 17:45:54 GMT
@mcdermott
I don't think that there is anyway of terminating the use of chemical weapons altogether. As long as powerful nations/groups with ill intentions have access to deadly weapons, they will be used. The problem with "rules" of war is that it is unlikely for all nations to follow them. The only thing that will suppress the use of chemical weapons will be the development of even more efficient, destructive technology that can be abused by tyrannical leaders instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry on Apr 15, 2018 22:48:36 GMT
m. ridgeway You posed an interesting question of how this chemical weapons attack will change the refugee situation. I believe that the attack will make countries more sympathetic towards refugees and possibly allow for more refugees to come into "safer" areas. Overall most humans do not like to see other humans suffer and will make exceptions to laws if it means saving lives or preventing harm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ridgeway. on Apr 16, 2018 0:08:40 GMT
@neely;
"Conventional artillery" (whatever you mean by that) is calculated, in a sense. Assuming you refer to guns, a gun must be guided and aimed. The trigger needs to be pulled, and in a perfect war it's aimed at the other army, not civilians. Those affected by “conventional artillery” are, sadly, unfortunately, those who have been put in that role. We (I) view chemical weapons as horrendous and the deaths caused by them so badly because chemical weapons aren’t guided. They’re mindless, and even less guarantee that those hurt by it aren’t ‘innocents’, however you wish to define the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weber on Apr 16, 2018 0:36:33 GMT
@neely The reason for chemical weapons being more “horrific” is because of the results they give. With conventional artillery, you are easily killed without having much suffering as opposed to chemical weapons that provides a prolonged suffering for a longer amount of time. Though I’m not saying that either of these choice weapons are better than the other, just that one provides more suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by McDermott on Apr 16, 2018 0:48:18 GMT
In response to your question, I do not believe there is a way to stop chemical weapons from being used entirely. Though the action that the president as well as France and Britain has gone through with will make Syria stop for a brief amount of time, maybe even entirely. But in the end, the other countries who have not agreed to end chemical weapons will still continue to use them, and even countries who have agreed, depending on the crisis at hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Callihan on Apr 16, 2018 0:59:43 GMT
m. ridgeway. I do beileve that this could definitely change the way we look at refugees coming from the Middle East. I also could see how this could lead to an unstable future. There is no way that we could come out on this cleaned handedly as great as it sounds there is just no way around this because of the missiles launching. I hoped we would intervene but not launch with missiles, us using violence is just going to lead to more violence .
|
|
|
|
Post by duffy1818 on Apr 16, 2018 1:02:25 GMT
@caldwell i agree with the statement you made about showing power. if the united states it to keep other nations respect, we must follow through with our promises. trump’s missle attacks on syria show our power and that we will not stand for such cruel acts, no matter what nation is involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by duffy181818 on Apr 16, 2018 1:06:43 GMT
@mcdermott no, there is no way to eliminate the use of chemical weapons. the world we live in is cruel and not ideal. there is no way to prevent any one thing from occurring in life, as humans will be human and do very dumb things for selfish reasons. fighting against assad is a matter of standing up for what is deemed “right” and showing power to instill fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Callihan on Apr 16, 2018 1:14:16 GMT
sierranagy I completely agree when you say that the president has been using twitter as a means of sloppily using his right of free speech and when you said that he would look weak if he were to potentially back out now. Do you think Trump tweeted this specifically to make congress form to his wishes? If so do you think this will happen more in the future?
|
|
|
|
Post by sierranagy on Apr 16, 2018 3:12:30 GMT
Hey Madison, first off your responses never fail to make me smile. To address your question of whether or not Russia will be angry with us, it is clear that they are. (You were not aware of this at the time this was written of course) Is there a clear way out of this situation? No, but there really isn’t for anything. My prediction would be that Russia, if they wish to be involved will do so through a third party, likely supplying Syria with items for defensive, possibly even offensive tactics.
|
|
|
|
Post by sierranagy on Apr 16, 2018 3:18:44 GMT
@callihan
Yes, I do believe that it is very possible that President Trump tweeted that tactically, or even more likely, he has a staff member running his Twitter account for him. When you consider how many people he reaches with his Tweets (because the world is waiting around to be entertained by what he says) he has a huge network of people who know his plans for himself and for the country. In this case his belief is shown on a world stage, where he proclaims America's next feat, leaving few able to counter him when it's all said and done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stoughton on Apr 16, 2018 3:44:39 GMT
@baker I completely understand why you feel that what happened in Syria was tragic, but I do not believe President Trump was right to speak about it, and over twitter of all places. Yes, it’s unprofessional and can cause him (as well as the rest of the country), but moving on. As you said, there is no use for chemical weapons other than pure terrorism. More times than not, these weapons harm civilians even if they were targeted as accurately as possible. I’m a strong believer of picking your battles and I can safely say that if President Trump doesn’t stop instigating every foreign power, we will end up in the same boat at the syrian civilians.
|
|
|
|
Post by campbell on Apr 16, 2018 10:54:27 GMT
@mcdermott I don’t think there is a way to stop the use of chemical weapons. If someone like Assad gets access to them, they will continue to use them even if they know it irritates the rest of the world. At this point I think the weapons may be used more frequently than be stopped.
|
|
|
|
Post by campbell on Apr 16, 2018 10:58:15 GMT
@caldwell the presidents aren’t taking action because they are afraid of the what the worst possible outcomes could be. If the interfere in the crisis, Syria could begin to use chemical warfare on the United States and create war. Also, if we stake action on Syria, it will upset Russia who is a military powerhouse that we don’t want to become enemies with
|
|
