|
|
Post by Ridgeway. on Apr 16, 2018 12:22:59 GMT
@nagy
Thanks I try.
Your quote, “Social media has become a key platform for politics, and the President’s choice to sloppily exercise his free speech could have been intentional…” rings disturbingly true. Social media, in the political sphere, is a dangerous and slippery slope. #TakeItBack is our grassroots twitter tag for...Chris Rieger. Telegraphing military movements on the Twitter is a different issue, though, considering how easily it is accessed.
|
|
|
|
Post by McDermott on Apr 16, 2018 13:12:04 GMT
duffy "And with the allies backing Assad, Trump must take into consideration what consequences could come about." This is an really interesting statement for you to close with. I agree with you in a sense that President Trump needs to be thinking abut the pros and cons that could come out of the decision that needs to be made. Moreover, he needs to make a decision that not only will benefit our country, but will benefit the idea of gaining allies as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by ConnorB on Apr 16, 2018 16:02:47 GMT
Caldwell: I believe the reason that the U.S. has been hesitant to engage the Assaad regime is because they are supported by Russia, and the U.S. is hesitant to do anything that may provoke Russia, especially in times when Trump states that he is attempting to mend the relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fischer on Apr 16, 2018 16:27:03 GMT
m. ridgeway I like what you said about Pandora box. That was an interesring connectionto be made. To comment on what you said about the refuge situation. I dont believe that it will change anything. People will be just as divided as they were before about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bell on Apr 16, 2018 16:29:08 GMT
@mcdermott Personally I do not believe that chemical weapons can be eliminated completely. This is because it is universally known that Chemical weapons are not a good thing but there are no ways to have everyone give them up. As much as I wish I could say there is a universal solution, I don't believe there is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fischer on Apr 16, 2018 16:29:37 GMT
@mcdermott
I do not believe there will be any way to get rid of chemical warfare completely. Some of the chemical combinations, mustard gas for example, is way too easy for people to get their hands on. The governement would have no way of keeping the people from getting them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bell on Apr 16, 2018 16:33:44 GMT
campbell There are circumstances for everything and in this case it is hard to say. In a way it seem like is a seesaw. If one person were to say "yes! We need to help any time that we can!" people tend to see how it is putting us in a risky situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ConnorB on Apr 16, 2018 16:47:15 GMT
@mcdermott: Unfortunately, getting rid of any type of weapon is near impossible. This is especially true in the case of chemical weapons as many are created out of compounds that, by themselves, are harmless or have practical applications. For instance, bleach is used in many homemade chemical weapons, but poses many household uses. This is even more difficult when instead of policing a population, we would be trying to police a seperate government.
|
|
