|
|
Post by Kamerer on Apr 13, 2018 2:15:23 GMT
Kaleb Kamerer pd.11
Chemical Weapons have been a viable aspect in the Syrian Civil War. The Assad regime has been using them against their citizens, therefore making them suffer. Recently Assad killed 42 adults and children with one of his chemical attacks. These attacks are unnecessary, and in which Assad should receive consequences; these consequences do not necessarily mean bombing, but whatever makes him stop. Although there is an unlikely chance of chemical weapons being eliminated completely, we can still reduce the amount of attacks. Trump’s recent open threat towards Assad's action, might be that something we need to prevent more attacks from happening. One thing's for certain, we should not fight fire with fire. For example, “A major escalation — a concerted campaign to do serious harm to Assad’s military capabilities.” stated by vox. This statement explains, how the U.S does not want the intervene that much, so they do not get too involved. Trump explains how they must suffer a big price, but it is evident that no matter what anyone does, Assad will continue to distribute chemical attacks throughout his country. Vox explains, that Assad may withdraw from future larger-scale attacks, but will not conclude with his chemical warfare. The reasoning for this is because he does not want American involvement. Therefore, Trump should provide a warning threat with Russian allies, that prevents Assad from causing anymore mass destruction. This would prevent Assad using chemical warfare in mass quantities because he does not want United States involvement. So the arching question is what red-line will be drawn(if any) that will push Trump into involving the United States even further into this worldwide issue. He explains that he will prevent bringing the United States into involvement with Syria. The red-line was already crossed. The resolution they tried to uphold, was to eliminate Syria’s chemical stockpile as a whole. This undoubtedly failed; Syria was believed to have destroyed all 27 production facilities destroyed. This suggest to the U.S that they should not trust anything that is said. There is not way to prevent Syria from using chemical weapons, but there is ways to reduce them. These weapons are just as dangerous as conventional weapons. For example, the end resolute for both weapons is death. The difference in these weapons are they are more hanis and horrific than conventional weapons. For instance, they cause pain and suffering, rather than a quick painless death. This is the reasoning for, why nations are against them, because they believe humans should not die in such a horrific way. In conclusion, Assad regime needs to be threatened enough by the United States, to prevent large scale attacks.
Q: What actions would you take if you were Donald Trump? What is your red-line?
Q: Is Chemical warfare for prolific in affecting society?
|
|
|
|
Post by chechak on Apr 13, 2018 4:43:41 GMT
Trump has recently tweeted, “....to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!” President Trump has made many remarks openly about what is going on in Syria. Trump can be as active as he wants in this situation but before anything big happens, it should be cleared by his advisors and possibly congress. If this would escalate into war, he does have the power as president to send troops, but it is up to congress to officially declare war. The president should take an active role in this, but he should be careful how he goes about it. He should be careful about it because he should do what is in our country's best interest and try his hardest not to start a war. In the text Chemical weapons background, it states,¨There are four main types of modern chemical weapons: nerve agents, which disrupt the nervous system; blister agents, which lead to painful blistering of the skin; choking agents, which impede breathing and can cause permanent lung damage; and blood agents, which cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, and, in high doses, convulsions and commas.¨ As for guns, when people get shot they die. They could suffer, but not as bad as chemical weapons. When someone hears gunshots, they have a chance of running and surviving, as for chemical weapons, you go to breathe and it is in you body already doing the damage. Chemical weapons are way more inhuman than guns. In history, when the holocaust happened, the gas was classified as a chemical weapon. So this is why and when the chemical weapons got such a bad reputation. They can harm thousands, if not millions if there is enough. When the ¨red line¨ has been crossed, there needs to be international action. If there is no action, then no one will respect the law. Icrc states, ¨The international community banned the use of chemical and biological weapons after World War I and reinforced the ban in 1972 and 1993 by prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and transfer of these weapons.¨ This is when the Chemical Weapons Convention decided to step in. Which the CWC is an arms control treaty that outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. The topic of chemical weapon use in war is generally not in use for most countries but Syria is challenging the use of these weapons. How the surrounding countries around the world will react to this can definitely change the whole game of war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Howell on Apr 13, 2018 16:41:23 GMT
Chemical weapons were made thousands of year ago whether it was putting it on a tip of an arrow or putting it in a drink or food. Chemical Weapons today are now in forms of bombs dropped from a plane overhead. These weapons are very dangerous to the point where there are rules of war put on top of them. After Syria used their reserved chemical supply on Assad it crossed that “Red Line” former President Obama mentioned. The current President Trump should use the military against Syrian.
First, chemical weapons may not be as deadly as nuclear bombs but they very possibly can be depending on what kind it is. Chemical weapons range from blister agents, blood agents, choking hazard agents, nerve agents, tear gas, vomiting, and death. These weapons also can’t be condoned to one certain area. This is because not only do the chemicals go into the atmosphere but these chemical can spread from person to person thus leading it to be all over a small city within 24 hrs. The only way to avoid these issues is to wear a gas mask and gas suit to prevent it. But these are not items everyone has in their household so even if their military is equipped with the necessary equipment the civilians who died due to collateral damage will be harmed or die. These weapons quickly become taboo.
Second, These weapon were obviously way to powerful and harmful to innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. So in 1925 many countries signed the Geneva Protocol. The Geneva Protocol is a treaty signed by 38 countries that gave way to the prohibition of poison or any harmful gas to be used in the state of war. Thus, bringing us to a current topic.
Third, Syria has been in civil war with Assad since 2011 but recently Assad has used chemical weapons against other Syrian civilians. President Trump has a power as President to use his war powers against Assad and he should. It may seem irrational but when people or other human beings who are being killed by their own country it seems like a greater power needs to step in and stop the injustice. Not only that but Assad also used chemical weapons whether it was on themselves or not there are rules to everything including war because these weapons are way too dangerous to let one person use and everyone else will think it's okay. One problem with this would be Syria’s allies which include Russia.
Q: Would it be fair if the United States used chemical weapons against them by "giving them a taste of their own medicine"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Apr 13, 2018 20:16:59 GMT
Chemical weapons are some of the most deadly ones out there. Seven years after World War one, 38 countries signed the Geneva Protocol which stated that you were not allowed to use chemical weapons in warfare. Signatories of the protocol, however, reserved the right to retaliate with chemical weapons if they were attacked with them first, and the protocol did not ban the ownership or production of chemical weapons outright. After the recent chemical attack in Douma, there has been serious question and concern of what the president should do. There have been many comments stating that action is on the way and something will be done “fairly soon”. One of Presidents Trump’s Tweets stated “...Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK! 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) In agreeance with him that this is sick and some cruel action taken for no reason, that should leave no room to undermine what our former President (Obama) had done in office. Now is a time more than ever to forget what the past has brought or could have brung. It is a time to stand up when the nation needs us to and make history that is looked up on by all other leaders. Not a time for criticism or arguments. Current president (Trump) has been talking over the plan of action with his team. And making matters more exciting, the Syrian Government has denied all allegations on conducting a chemical attack. As well, Putin has said that Assad was framed. International chemical weapons experts were last travelling to Douma to gather more information on the matter and bring back true evidence to continue this ongoing investigation.(BBC News) Until they know for a sure fact that this was the Syrian government who conducted the chemical attack, no action should be taken place. Yes something does need to be done, but conducting an airstrike on a country that has been at war with itself for the past seven years doesn’t seem like the greatest of ideas. Especially if there is a large chance that our alliance with Russia will be tampered with, if not, depleted all together. As the United States, we should want to keep as many alliances as possible. Even Pope Francis stated in his Sunday mass that the attacks are an “unjustifiable use of ‘instruments of extermination’ and urges political leaders to seek a different path of ‘negotiations, which is only one that can bring about peace and not death and destruction”. (NPR) In the next week or even sooner there are going to be so many ideas thrown out there, but the Pope speaks with truth and a whole heart. If we can avoid as many casualties as possible and come to a verbal agreement that would be incredible. Why do we always have to go to war or air strikes or harm? Why can’t we try a little bit harder at the more peaceful approaches? However, the fate of it lies in the arms of President Trump and we will have to patiently wait for whatever comes next.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hilliard on Apr 13, 2018 22:21:35 GMT
Chemical weapons are at the to of the deadliest weapons list on Earth. Under international law they are sought out to be weapons of mass destruction and the global community has long singled them out as being particularly odious. Chemical weapons can be used in a variety of ways which is why they are so easy to use. Two of the most notorious forms of dispersing such gases are by plane or in canisters. President Trump threatens to attack the Syrian Airbase that is responsible for the attack. Is this the right decision or is there a better way to handle it. In a recent tweet from President Trump, he states that Russia intends to block the missiles and President Trump taunts President Putin. Could this bring possible conflict between the U.S. and Russia? There were two different airstrikes in Syria, the first one used chlorine gas and the second used a stronger mixed which allowed for more death. President Trump should respond, but in what manner. Another airstrike does not seem to be the answer. This may lead to further aggravation by the Syrian government. In terms of war, chemical weapons have been ruled out. All foreign powers have agreed on that. Syria has violated this agreement and this should bring up great controversy all around the world. In order to solve this problem, there should be a decision made on how to act with all foreign leaders. This doesn't just affect the U.S., but all everyone. Trump had no right to take matters into his own hands, but something had to be done. 70 people have died in the atack. Since the strike, the U.S. has responded by bombing the air base that is held responsible for the attack. The base was empty and the U.S. used a lot of resources for this attack. Could the result of Trump’s tweet about the attack raise red flags and allow them to evacuate the base? Is social media playing a larger role in military affairs than we would like?
Q: How will the rest of the world respond in relation to threats made by Russia toward the U.S.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kingerski on Apr 14, 2018 3:04:15 GMT
Since before the first World War began, there has been an agreement documented in treaties from many world powers stating that these particular powers would refrain from the use of deploying chemical weapons. Due to the Syrian civil war, however, this treaty has been called into question. The Assad regime has recently put this type of warfare to use, and the United States is attempting to take matters into their own hands. Unlike the Obama administration, since President Trump has been in office, he has put forth an effort to stop the chemical weapons that are being used. Although, while his first attempt did not seem to have any impact, President Trump announced as of Friday, April 13, there would be an attack on Syria. According to Trump, “These are not the actions of a man, they are crimes of a monster instead.” There is question, though, of whether or not a President has the power to make such decisions. The Constitution states that it is the President who holds the place as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but it also includes that it is Congress who has the power to declare war. The issue stems from the fact that there has been a breach of the treaty, and that chemical warfare is entirely different from other types. Chemical weapons affect soldiers and civilians alike. It is hard to keep civilians safe during a time like what is happening in Syria, which is why the Trump administration decided to take action. He believes that the Assad regime has crossed over “the red line,” as former President Obama referred to it as. When there is a consensus, spanning over many different countries, that using chemical weapons crosses a line, then measures must be taken, which is why it is speculated that France and the U.K. are going along with the strike against Syria as well. That being said, it is because of theses difficult circumstances that President Trump is putting a plan into action that he believes will best serve the safety and security of the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kingerski on Apr 14, 2018 3:12:33 GMT
@novak It is hard to believe that chemical weapons are still being used even after the Geneva Protocol had been signed. This is baffling to me which is why I'm glad you included it within your response. However, do you agree with Trump's statement that had President Obama fought against Syria, this would all be over? I find that although Obama did state that using chemical weapons was a "red line," we would have still ended up in the same predicament. Additionally, with the new information that President Trump is planning to strike against Syria, fear for our country and soldiers have been mixed into to the already growing mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kingerski on Apr 14, 2018 3:19:59 GMT
@chechak President Trump announced tonight his plan to strike against Syria, and it is said that France and the U.K. will be joining the attack. Do you think this is the kind of game changer that is needed in such a dire situation? With other countries as allies there should be a larger chance of chemical weapons and the dangers that come with them being eliminated. Although, President Trump has repeatedly spoken out against publicly announcing military action and stated that the United States is entirely too predictable. By publishing his plan, however, he seems to be going against his own belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magliocca on Apr 14, 2018 4:05:07 GMT
President Trump should have a very strong role in regards to the situation in Syria currently. As far as war is considered, it is important to keep in mind that the President does not have the power to declare war against another nation. He gains the right to direct the military after Congress declares war. This can be dangerous if foreign nations do not understand this and only hear or see what the President says through speeches or online. In the current case, Trump tweeted with reference to potential missiles being sent to Syria, which could have repercussions if Syria were to think that Trump was able to make the decision to declare war, in which case hostility could arise. In an article from BBC News, it was stated that chemical weapons were suspected to have been dropped on Khan Sheikhoun, a northwestern rebel-held town in Syria. Hundreds are suffering from symptoms that very similar to the symptoms that would be shown in a nerve agent reaction. Chemical weapons differ from conventional weapons in that they are more difficult to detect exactly where they came from or if there is even a chemical substance in the air, because it can often spread in a wider radius and, since it is so disperse, can be difficult to even see in the air. Conventional weapons are much easier to detect because there tends to be a blast and a blast radius, and one can clearly see exactly what caused the fatalities and injuries. Chemical weapons in some cases can be worse than conventional weapons because of how difficult it can be to detect them. Another one of the reasons that they could be considered worse is that they can cause individuals to die a slow and painful death, such as nerve agents and other chemicals. Not only that, but as was stated previously, the radius that the chemical agent spreads through the air can be much larger than some conventional weapons. This weapon could be considered taboo historically because they are a weapon that is used more likely in secret than conventional weapons. Their use can be hidden and disguised as an accident from some other source as opposed to a direct strike that is seen in conventional weapons. Often other nations can use a method like this sort of strike to incite the action of the United States to get involved internationally. It could be done by Syria or even Russia to have us intervene there for a variety of reasons. It would be best if we waited to get involved until more information about the event comes out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Williams on Apr 14, 2018 14:19:01 GMT
The Syria crisis that has overtaken our nation and many others has reached new heights. With the Syrian ruler’s, Assad, horrific chemical attack on his people last week the United States was left wondering what our response would entail. President Trump has been very vocal regarding his views on Syria and all involved, directly targeting Russia seeing as they are allies of the Syrian government. An article published by NPR summarized Trump’s actions by stating, “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’. Based on the constitutional power granted to the president, Trump has ever right to conduct any and all military action he chooses against Syria. However this does not mean it is in his best interest to do so. The Section 23 readings spoke about the divisions of powers and how the president is to be commander in chief of the military but, Congress is given the power to declare war. This was done purposefully by the framers in order to keep the president of gaining too much power and putting the country in danger. However, the significance of this division of power is often overlooked. In the past presidents has conducted many military strikes without a declaration of war issued by Congress. Throughout the years, as the country as drifted further and further from the Framers vision, the president has gained all the power in situations such as these. An article published by the Chicago Tribune put the issue in perspective by stating, “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 proves that the president can single-handedly put the entire country in a terrible state of warfare. Despite the misuse of power found in conducting such actions, the president is not alone in his disagreement of such horrible chemical attacks. Chemical attacks themselves are considered taboo in the rules of war and have been since World War I. They are frowned upon because of their inaccuracy. When using a chemical weapon there is no way of targeting it so that it only harms those one is firing against and not innocent civilians. Because of this the world has been against chemical weapons entirely for decades. Assad’s actions with chemical weapons is not a recent development. He is said to have done similar attacks on his people multiple times in the past. This is alarming and needs to be put to an end. Countries such as American, France, and Britain have all spoken out against Assad and vocalized their intentions of ending these vicious attacks in hopes of keeping chemical weapons taboo, and not normalized.
|
|
|
|
Post by Williams on Apr 14, 2018 20:24:11 GMT
@bonetti I agree that the president should not have the authority to do what he has. I also believe that past presidents should not have been able to pass such open and subjective acts regarding the war on terror. However, do you believe that the incredible destruction and suffering caused by chemical weapons in turn give the president the authority to do whatever is necessary to fight for the human race as a whole, inside and outside of the untied states? Other countries such as France and England have spoken of their intentions to do what it necessary to make it clear that regardless of the state of government chemical weapons are never to be used. Do you think it is the United States' responsibility should join these countries?
|
|
|
|
Post by Williams on Apr 14, 2018 20:41:50 GMT
@hilliard I agree that the presidents actions were justified but not authorized. Although, as of today the United States has sent several missals to Syria taking out three different targets in response to the most recent chemical attack brought about by the Assad regime. I belive this will open a can of worms for the United States and put a target on our backs for getting involved and making a statement. However, I also believe that this airstrike will send a message to the rest of the world encouraging other countries to stand up for the treatment of humans everywhere not just in their country. I don't know if these actions of retaliation were the best way to handle the situation or not but i do believe it was better than nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Apr 15, 2018 21:11:04 GMT
@sarver
I like how you started with the quote “No child of God should ever have to suffer such a horror”. It is something that can be agreed upon on many different levels, bringing into perspective what is really going on out there. As for the question you posed, “... could this affect other countries coming towards the U.S. based on our decisions to intervene?” There will always be controversy with the decisions the United States makes. There is no doubt about that. In this particular situation it also will occur. Probably most with Russia, being Putin has made various statements on how Assad has been framed. This may not be good for the U.S. possibly losing an ally, but anything is possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by McHattie on Apr 15, 2018 21:21:19 GMT
@sarver “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.” I agree, it is pretty scary thinking about this situation cause either way people are going to get hurt in the end. Getting involved with Syria could lead to a larger war and on the other hand, not get involved will just lead to more innocent people getting killed. I can't imagine what Syria’s next move is going to be since we sent missiles over recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Apr 15, 2018 21:23:00 GMT
@mchattie
I agree with your statement “Overall, this situation is a double edged sword.” It truly is and it’s sad to say that either way no immense good will come out of this. Now, President Trump saying “...you shouldn’t be friends with a Gas Killing Animal who kills people and likes it!” Is not one of the smartest moves. If he really wants to keep things good with Russia, comments like that are not helpful. I think that if conventional weapons were used, it would not be this controversial. I say this because of the Geneva Protocol that was signed and clearly broken. It would still be a horrendous act if Assad would have used conventional weapons, however there is no Act that has stated not to use them. That still isn’t to say that any of this is right or moral.
|
|
