|
|
Post by McHattie on Apr 15, 2018 21:24:24 GMT
@howell I believe giving Syria a “taste of their own medicine” by using chemical weapons against them would just make matters a lot worse. Overall I think we should be trying to stop the use of chemical weapons in general, but using them against Syria would just promote the use. Either way, getting involved with Syria is going to most likely cause a war, but using chemical weapons would make it worse. Sending over missiles is probably the best choice for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roxberry on Apr 15, 2018 22:07:28 GMT
@kingerski: The addition of two other war powers fighting against Assad's regime is definitely a game changer. Not only does the coordination of two other countries make a more impactful statement, but it adds a safeguard to our troops who initially would have been conducting this attack themselves. However, it is extremely intriguing and somewhat unnerving that President Trump as counteracted his own beliefs by making public his plans for the attack on Syria. It is because of wary beliefs such as this that make it difficult for the people to condone giving the President so much power involving war.
@magliocca: You stated that President Trump "should have a very strong role in regards to the situation in Syria", but that "It would be best if we waited to get involved until more information about the event comes out". I agree with you completely. Some are saying that it would be best not to get involved, but maybe do not quite understand the involvement the U.S. has been subject to due to the actions of the previous administrations. The U.S. has had troops in Syria for quite some time and Assad's actions are not only a danger to his people, but ours as well. If we leave Assad and his Russian partners to the use of chemical weapons by not making a statement, it could have negative impacts in the long run. America, as well as our allies, could be subject to the use of chemical weapons if we do not stop the growing power Assad and Russia are currently obtaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Howell on Apr 16, 2018 2:04:55 GMT
@kamerer: If I were Trump I my "redline" would be if Syria was to continue using these chemical weapons more then once. This then would get out of hand because if they were to continue the use of these chemical weapons other countries may think they can to. The best way to resolve this matter is to aid the affected side and help stop the use of these chemical weapons.
@mchattie: If regular weapons were used instead of Chemical weapons then this probably wouldn't as controversial because there are not rules of war restricting the use of conventional bombs which is sad to say. To me even the use of normal bombs may be to much but it doesn't compare to the use of these chemical weapons that kill and harm people who get caught in the crossfire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamerer on Apr 16, 2018 3:38:12 GMT
@chechak if we gave them a taste of their own medicine, then it would just cause an all out war among countries. For example, the nuclear warfare that we are discussing right now among nation. The only difference is chemical warfare is more gruesome. Also, if we gave them a taste of their own medicine,the United States would be very hippocraticle, because we want them to get rid of their weapons yet we still have are ready for use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamerer on Apr 16, 2018 3:42:59 GMT
Woopsy last @ was meant to be @howell not Chechak.
@mchattie I don't believe this will result in a large scale war, because that is exactly what Assad is trying to avoid. For example, Assad wants as less American intervention as possible. Therefore, I believe this will not result in large scale war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chechak on Apr 16, 2018 4:13:39 GMT
@mchattie I agree with you in response to Howell. Giving Syria a taste of their own medicine would not fix a single thing. What would be the point in chemically attacking a country to try to stop them from chemically attacking. Missiles would be the better option, for giving a warning to stop the attacks. The U.S. would just be hypocrites if they used chemical weapons. Our country needs to step in, we can not sit back and just watch a country be so harmed from their own leaders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chechak on Apr 16, 2018 4:22:33 GMT
@kamerer, If I were Trump, my red line would be the situation we are seeing now. A country using chemical weapons on their own people. I firmly believe that all bombs are cruel, but something has to be done. If I were to be president I would not send over any type of chemical bombs. A missile is the best option right now to give a heavy warning that we are not messing around with the use of these weapons. I could not sit back and just watch these gruesome attacks happening over and over again. This would definitely be my red line, as for it is Trumps too.
|
|
|
|
Post by @chechak on Apr 16, 2018 4:32:18 GMT
@kingerski I do believe this is a game changer. Not only that the US went in to attack but because we had other countries go in also. I feel it brought a stronger message to Syria that they need to cut it out. It isn’t that the US is fed up with it but others also, if I were Syria and only had one country send a bomb over to me I wouldn’t be too afraid, but it is 3 against 1 right now and they need to understand that they need to stop attacking their own country, because others are taking it personal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hilliard Hi on Apr 16, 2018 16:20:39 GMT
@howell yes it would be fair but it is not the right response. In this situation the U.S. does not need to stop down to the level of Syria and use chemical weapons that we signed against using in warfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hilliard on Apr 16, 2018 16:23:26 GMT
@croll yes it is necessary for Trump to take action in this situation. The only unanswered question is how to respond? There are ways to do this that are ineffective and will not make a statement and then there are ways that will offend and anger other countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magliocca on Apr 16, 2018 17:37:54 GMT
@howell No it would not be fair if the United States used chemical weapons to “give them a taste of their own medicine” because chemical weapons do not discriminate so everyone in the wake of the attack would be affected. Soldiers, children, innocent men and women. Also it would be different if they had used chemical weapons on us and we retaliated but we would be simply expanding the affected area with more chemical weapons and the same land as the original attack.
@hilliard the rest of the world would respond to the attack by picking sides, either the side of the U.S. or the side of Russia. By picking sides that would help them become more involved in the situation and people loved to be involved to the point that they can afford to be.
|
|
