|
Post by Admin on Apr 9, 2018 11:08:38 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 Bonetti on Apr 10, 2018 1:49:58 GMT
After the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, came a phrase popularized by President George W. Bush called “The War On Terror.” This term incorporates open military operations, efforts to decrease acts of terrorism, as well as the addition of certain or “necessary” security precautions. Pertaining to “The War On Terrorism” is the 60-word sentence that was created by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, in which it states "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." If President Trump were to strictly abide by this statement, his decision to send a missile to Syria would be unjustifiable due to the fact that the U.S. is not included in the Syrian terrorist attacks. The U.S. is not involved because the Obama Organization obeyed a strict “hands-off policy” in Syria. In fact, according to Vox, “As they, (The Obama Organization), saw it, the critical issue was never the Syrian civil war, which the president had decided was too risky to intervene in. From this, President Trump “should” technically not be able to be actively involved in the response of the chemical release. On the other hand, it is believed by many that the intervention of the U.S. Government is “necessary” for security purposes because there has been a recent use of chemical weapons on the people of Syria. The use of chemical weapons is not only devastating but extremely illegal. In comparison with conventional weapons, chemical weapons cause quick and mass destruction to the surrounding locations and victims. As stated in an article provided by NPR, “Dozens of Syrians in Douma have died by suffocation, following reports of a chemical attack”, and that “many of the dead are reportedly women and children.” As a result of the use of conventional weapons worldwide on a regular basis, a war incorporating chemical weapons is deemed as “much worse.” In support of this statement is an article by CNN quoting President Donald Trump which states, "It was an atrocious attack, it was horrible. You don't see things like that as bad as the news is around the world, you just don't see those images." Furthermore, the lack of usage of chemical weapons, as well as the immense suffering and destruction from these tools has led President Donald Trump to openly interpret the law in order to enforce international security.
|
|
|
Post by Roxberry on Apr 10, 2018 2:14:00 GMT
Since the terror attacks that took place on 9/11, the commanders in chief have been using the same AUMF to fight the “war on terror”. The language within the post 9/11 authorization is so vague, as it states, “IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”(congress.gov). This has enabled the executive branch to take the lead role in determining how and where the U.S military defends the United States. Recently, however, Congress has made an attempt to rein in the existential growth in presidential powers. According to an article from the New York Times Congress has been debating for a long time how to revise and update the war authorization law, because since its enactment, “three presidents, from both major parties, have stretched it to cover enemies beyond the original Al Qaeda and its Taliban host in Afghanistan.”. This was evident in the more recent Obama and Trump administrations through their use of military force in an attempt to eliminate the use of chemical warfare in Syria, as well as the power ISIS was gaining from the dismantled Syrian regime, which has been taking place since 2011. According to Vox, “Since practically the beginning of the conflict, al-Qaeda had been sending forces into Syria, seeing a chaotic civil war as a great environment for them to use as a safe haven and a place to get recruits.” Obama approached this situation in as much of a hands-off situation as possible, spending millions of dollars in an attempt to train Syrian Rebels that resulted in failure. Yet he threatened that there was a “red line”, and if it was crossed, the use of military force would take place. This line, referring to the use of chemical weapons, was tested by Assad in 2013 when he sarin gas, killing thousands of civilians. However, Obama did not follow through with his statement and Russia, who has very close relations with Assad, took advantage of the president’s in-action to escalate Russian dominance. Since then, another chemical weapon attack took place and Trump is claiming that he is willing to act and on the basis of the post 9/11 AUMF. The role President Trump takes in this situation with Syria is crucial to the security of the nation. As of right now, “Both Russia and the Syrian government deny the reports of the chemical attack, calling them bogus and fabricated.” (NPR) so if Trump were to engage in military action without a definite answer as to who committed this act, the U.S. could face major repercussions. However, the use of chemical weapons is against agreements made by the United Nations and the deviant behavior of Assad and his Russian allies has to be curbed somehow. Even Congress, despite its want to limit presidential war powers,” are also calling on President Trump to act definitively.”(NPR). Q1: Is Trump's approach to eliminating the use of chemical weapons by pulling troops out of Syria and attacking Assad through an airstrike a more rational approach than Obama's? Q2: What problems could Trump run into if he engages in military action without affirmative informtion about who used the chemical weapons?
|
|
|
Post by Sarver on Apr 10, 2018 23:23:29 GMT
The quote, "No child of God should ever suffer such a horror," said by President Trump, regarding the Syrian individuals that depict the bad news faced around the world. President Trump had promised a “big price’ to be paid for what he said was a chemical weapons attack alleged by the Syrian government in Eastern Ghouta. The term chemical weapon is applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary disable or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Chemical weapons are of dubious military value, and mostly used for their terror effects. Trump stated, “This is about humanity, and it can’t be allowed to happen.” (Washington Post). This quote is very symbolic to the fact that no human should have to face these difficulties brought upon by Assad. After a similar chemical weapons attack a year ago, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian air base, and the latest incident will test the president's declaration just a few days ago that he wants "to get out" of the civil-war ravaged country — a statement that put him at odds with some top U.S. military leaders. Former President Obama famously drew a red line pertaining to chemical weapons, that would threaten armed U.S. intervention if those were used. However, the Obama administration had chose a diplomatic route to remove Syria’s weapons, which did not eliminate the entire arsenal. The Guardian article explained about Trump’s consultations, “ respond to the Douma chemical attack “within days” adding that any air strikes would target Syrian government chemical facilities.” This certainly will not end the fighting across the country, but it may take away one of Assad’s most unconscionable methods of terrifying his citizens. In terms of responsibility, President Trump said, “If it’s the Russians, if it’s Syria, if it’s Iran, if it’s all of them together, we’ll figure it out”(USA Today). With all the information out there, it seems that Trump may be jumping to conclusions on what the “gossip” is about this situation. Maybe the nation is going to have to deal with serious mistakes made in the past before we can move forward or visa versa. Overall the situation is once again scary to what the next step could potentially mean in being in danger or keeping safe, but President Trump has taken precautions in demanding the international security for the harm that the chemical weapons have created. His decisions might or might not of been too soon to decide, but could this affect other countries coming towards the U.S based on our decisions to intervene?
|
|
|
Post by Sarver on Apr 10, 2018 23:36:46 GMT
@bonetti I liked how you stated, "it is believed by many that the intervention of the U.S. Government is “necessary” for security purposes because there has been a recent use of chemical weapons on the people of Syria." The torture these people were having to go through is quite horrific. I cannot imagine anyone having to suffer that type of pain. I also liked the quote you chose "you don't see things like that as bad as the news is around the world." In today's world it seems like every time you turn around there is violence occurring in some way. It seems like that is the only thing that is pictured on the news and it is scary to think what the future holds.
|
|
|
Post by Sarver on Apr 10, 2018 23:51:31 GMT
@roxberry "The role President Trump takes in this situation with Syria is crucial to the security of the nation." This statement of yours really is portraying how one individual is taking action to protect the entire nation. Something without a doubt needed to be done or else something even worse could/ might happen. Also, you stated, "Obama approached this situation in as much of a hands-off situation as possible, spending millions of dollars in an attempt to train Syrian Rebels that resulted in failure." I feel as if President Trump is taking more of a quick reaction to the situation than Obama was and Trump is motivated to get the job done. But, this could also backfire for what could possibly follow next with Trump being too quick for his strategy regarding the "price to be paid."
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Apr 11, 2018 1:56:46 GMT
The use of violence against other nations has unfortunately become an action very familiar to people of this age. When violence is targeted towards specific areas with malice intentions, that is when the president feels compelled to intervene. President Trump has recently taken matters into his own hands when he launched airstrikes against Syria following an alleged chemical attack in the northern part of the country. Dozens of Syrians lost their lives to the chemical weapons, most of the fatalities being women and children. According to npr, the first of multiple chemical attacks appeared to use chlorine gas. The second, stronger chemical attack followed a half hour later, deploying a gas that hit homes and penetrated basements. What makes this case so incredibly sad is that there is really no chance of escape from the chemical weapons. Unlike conventional weapons, once chemical weapons gas is deployed into the air, civilians have no choice but to breathe it in. With conventional weapons there is a much better chance of survival. Chemical weapons are also deadly, causing damage to the skin, lungs, and mind. Wsj news source predicts that the U.S. could launch a punitive military strike against Mr. Assad, the president of Syria. Right now our president (Trump) is using his wartime powers to fight back with an assumed enemy to protect our country. It is only right for Trump to act as a mediator between Syria and the United States while unyielding to the intimidation of Syria and it’s leader. Since Trump holds the title of president, he’s obtained the most power over any citizen in the United States, and is more likely to be negotiated with. In support, npr says that Pope Francis called the attacks an unjustifiable use of “instruments of extermination”, urging political members to seek a different path of negotiations, who is the only one who can bring about peace and not death and destruction. The fight is far from over, now up to Trump to instill some sort of sense without abusing his presidential powers.
|
|
|
Post by Croll on Apr 11, 2018 16:49:02 GMT
Taking place after the terror attacks on 9/11, the “War on Terror” came about by George W. Bush. The AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) has been used multiple times by those who are in office/ are the commander in chief. The AUMF is a very interpretable document due to such vague wording. It states, “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.” (congress.gov) In 2013, former President Obama had declared the use of chemical weapons as a “red line” where if Assad used them, there would be a response from the American military. Obama submitted a plan for punitive air strikes to Congress, where it was then decided that there was a high chance of failure. From Vox article, “Russia offered Obama a way out of his self-made dilemma. It brokered a deal with Assad where he would agree to give up his chemical weapons and submit to international inspections if the United States agreed not to attack Assad.” Critics believed that Assad had seen this as proof that Americans would never intervene. Roughly a year ago, President Trump ordered for a missile strike upon a Syrian airbase due to a large chemical weapon attack, as we have just seen recently. At that time, Trump tweeted “Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread of chemical weapons.” However, as said in an article from Vox, “But clearly the limited bombing did not send the desired message… Assad wasn’t deterred from using chemical weapons again.” President Trump’s part in this situation is based off the fact that he is relating it to the AUMF in the sense that it is important he takes action in order to preserve and promote the safety of our nation. Chemical weapons appear to differ from conventional in a worse manner. From the events that we have seen occur, the chemical weapons are a very deadly source. Shown by an article from NPR, “The second, stronger chemical attack followed a half hour later —deploying a gas that hit homes and penetrated basements. Medical workers report a chlorine odor, however they believe the second attack was mixed with a stronger chemical agent, causing instant death.” Just from a small period of contact with these chemical weapons, multiple fatalities can result. At the end of the day, for the safety of the United States and the prevention of further chemical attacks, it is important for President Trump to take action.
|
|
|
Post by McHattie on Apr 12, 2018 0:37:16 GMT
When looking at the recent chemical attacks that occurred in Syria, the question of what role president Donald Trump should play in this situation arises. According to a NPR article, “The first attack appeared to use chlorine gas. Most in the ICU were treated and apparently survived. The second, stronger chemical attack followed a half hour later —deploying a gas that hit homes and penetrated basements. Medical workers report a chlorine odor, however they believe the second attack was mixed with a stronger chemical agent, causing instant death.” The fact that over 40 innocent people, mostly women and children, in Douma died because of these chemical attacks stated in the quote above is devastating and something needs to be done to stop further attacks. Chemical weapons are considered to one of the deadliest weapons on Earth. Although conventional weapons can cause just as much damage , I believe that chemical weapons are worse because they can cause mass destruction in a short amount of time and they are discreet. One minute you’ll be fine and the next you could be dead. Obviously, Trump is very disgusted with the act Assad has committed. According to an NPR article, “...he took to Twitter Sunday morning to condemn what he called a ‘mindless CHEMICAL attack.’ He referred to Syrian President Bashar Assad as an ‘animal’ and pointed to a ‘big price to pay.’” These tweets show that Trump is planning to take matters into his own hands and is going to face the problem head on. What Trump was planning to do to make Syria pay was not really known, but a recent tweet he made today shows his intentions. According to a Chicago Tribune article, Trump tweeted, “Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria," Trump wrote. "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 his people and enjoys it!” Overall, the situation is a double edge sword. If Trump just sits back and does not do as his tweets say, this civil war will just continue and more and more civilians will be killed. On the other hand, getting involved could lead to an even bigger war. Although some say getting involved in this war is “immensely complicated and risky” (Vox), I believe that the role Trump is playing in this situation is for the best
Questions If conventional weapons were used instead of chemical weapons, do you think it would have been this controversial? Do you think the U.S involvement will just lead to a larger war?
|
|
|
Post by Croll on Apr 12, 2018 16:18:37 GMT
@mchattie I respect your stance on the role that President Trump is playing in this situation, as you stated “If Trump just sits back and does not do as his tweets say, this civil war will just continue and more and more civilians will be killed. On the other hand, getting involved could lead to an even bigger war. Although some say getting involved in this war is “immensely complicated and risky” (Vox), I believe that the role Trump is playing in this situation is for the best.” I agree with this because if Trump continues to make threats to Syria with no follow up, then they will continue believing that they can do whatever with no intervention. However, if the United States becomes too far involved, we could be looking at a much larger issue. The only way to possibly put an end to this is to take the actions that Trump has spoke of.
|
|
|
Post by Croll on Apr 12, 2018 16:31:17 GMT
@sarver When you had mentioned President Trump’s quote, “This is about humanity, and it can’t be allowed to happen.” (Washington Post). It really opens people’s eyes to see just how cruel and inhumane that the events in which are taking place really are. You later also stated “President Trump has taken precautions in demanding the international security for the harm that the chemical weapons have created.” President Trump has been using the AUMF as his way of intervention, in the idea of preserving our national security. Even if Trump has jumped to a conclusion very quickly, it is important that they know we are willing to intervene with military force in order to prevent future chemical attacks. If we do not intervene with military force, it will tell them in a sense that they can continue to do what they are doing and walk all over us. If there is not a consequence to come with their actions, these chemical attacks will continue to occur.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Apr 13, 2018 0:35:57 GMT
@mchattie I agree fully with you that chemical weapons are worse in damage than conventional weapons. Chemical weapons are also something so shocking because we are not used to these kinds of defense. We are used to weapons such as guns. To answer your question, I think it's hard to tell. I mean I still think this event would be something seen big in the news, but Trump would at least know how to handle the situation better because conventional weapons is what he's most familiar with. He's kind of left on a limb with what to do with the chemical weapons. I think Trump is lost with what role he should play in this situation. He can't do nothing because he is our president and wants to protect the people. Getting more involved in this situation could even kill Trump, who knows who the next victim is.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Apr 13, 2018 0:55:48 GMT
@sarver I like how in your post you included the empathetic side of Trump. This event is about humanity to me, and about what it means to have human decency. The fact that attacks like these keep happening time after time s a problem fighting to be solved. I feel like if Obama took a stricter approach to remove Syria's weapons in the first place, this could of possibly been prevented. It seems like Assad enjoys terrifying his citizens to me, and what good of a leader is that? I agree that we should deal with the mistakes in the past in order to have a successful outcome in the future, but that is grounds no one wants to touch.
|
|
|
Post by Bonetti on Apr 13, 2018 1:22:10 GMT
@roxberry I found the last two questions that you posted at the end of your statement very intriguing... However, I would like to specifically respond to the question where you asked about the problems Trump might face if he engages in military action without affirmative information about who used the chemical weapons. In all honesty, I think that it is terrifying that our government can attack a foreign area without a specific pinpoint as to who released the chemical weapons. With misleading information, the U.S. Government could potentially kill even more innocent lives and potentially face even more of a political backlash than prior to his decision.
|
|
|
Post by Bonetti on Apr 13, 2018 1:34:30 GMT
@mchattie I found it ironic that you asked if there would be as much controversy if conventional weapons were used in place of chemical weapons because I have rethought this question a multitude of times. On one side, I thought that chemical weapons were a bigger deal than conventional ones, therefore controversy should definitely occur. However, it is really disappointing to think that millions of people die due to the conventional weapon usage, which is classified as "justifiable." While it is unfortunate, it is obvious that more controversy and the emotional appeal goes to those that are affected by the use of chemical weapons rather than conventional weapons.
|
|