Response to Post #1
Due Friday, September 20th
Please pick someone to respond to from last week on the question concerning whether the US should attack Syria. Your choices include:
- a classmate from either period 5 or 6
- President Obama (read his 9/10 speech's transcript)
- Russian President Putin (read his editorial in the New York Times)
Your response should be at least 1 paragraph long. It should be clear WHO you are responding to and what specific point they made that you are addressing. Your post can agree or disagree with their argument. Your response must include a MINIMUM of one source.
Remember to attack the argument and NOT the person.
Please post your response on this thread and not on the old one. Thanks.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 8:40 AM
51 Comments:
In response to Geenie K.’s text against attacking Syria:
Syria is a mess of problems, the forefront of which is a chemical weapon strike on its own people. Geenie said that a war with Syria would be bad because it would mean an increase in the number of lives lost for the Syrians and Americans. As it stands, war continues to wage in Syria and people are still being killed and will continue to be killed unless someone stops this (1). In addition, there also has not been headway in the missile negotiations to hand over and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons (1). While some may question why it matters if the people have been killed in one horrible manner versus another, chemical weapons have been banned in warfare. If chemical weapons are allowed in Syria, the next murderous dictator who comes along will know that no one will stop them if they use this cheap and efficient means of creating terror and destruction. And if not America, who? The European Union is blocked from intervening by Russia, which means that the United States is the only country big enough to enforce order. Also, by intervening in Syria, it would take off the pressure from the (often politically unstable) countries nearby. Iran has a rocky enough government without being pulled into a civil war in Syria (2). If the United States steps in, it would take off pressure on Iran to help out while also calm down countries surrounding Syria who fear invasion. Geenie also worried about the power vacuum created if the rebels win. Even if things are rocky, is it not better than a ruthless dictator who kills his own people? This could also be a great time to push for a less dictatorial government. Without U.S. involvement, Syria’s government will continue to use chemical weapons and kill its own people.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/drawing-a-line-on-syria-us-eyes-iran-talks.html?_r=0
In response to Putin’s Editorial:
In this editorial, Putin takes on the persona of a concerned executive who is trying to avoid future conflict by discouraging US action in Syria. Although I believe he has many other motives for attempting to prevent the US strike, for example Russia’s strong relations with the Assad family, I agree with his overall argument (2). Putin is arguing that US intervention in Syria would cause military action to expand beyond Syria’s borders and possibly cause another world conflict. He references the League of Nations, predecessor to the UN, which failed to prevent WWII because it had no real power. As the US’s proposed actions in Syria are actually against international law placed down by the UN, which requires an attack to either be either in self defense or allowed by the Security Council, Putin would view an attack as completely disregarding the UN (1). Putin insists that if the US can disregard UN international laws whenever they want, there is nothing to stop other countries from doing the same, which will eventually result in many other terrible wars between military powers. I agree with this argument. The US helped create most of these laws and it would send a horrible message to the rest of the world if we disregarded them whenever we pleased. It would signify that they mean nothing to us and therefore the rest of the world would stop taking them seriously. If that were to happen the UN would be powerless to enforce them because the UN only has as much power as the countries that make it up give it (1). Putin makes several valid points about maintaining peace and respecting the UN’s laws. For these reasons I agree with his arguments and hope that the US will not use military to intervene in Syria.
1. http://www.un.org/en/peace/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations
I am responding to Patrick B's post. I agree with Patrick on the major points he is making. Yes chemical weapons have been used, but there is a war raging here, lives are being lost in larger numbers than even the chemical weapons are causing. Like he said, one chemical weapons attack doesn't make it 1000x times worse than it already is. Lives are being lost regardless (which I'm not saying is okay.) He is right on with the military strategy he is talking about. We can't just drop a few air strikes and think Assad will all of a sudden back down. This needs to be either a full-out strike and take down, or we need to stay out of it all together. Only going half speed with cause higher casualties for us and Assad will be less intimidated. I think Patrick's best point is the one he brings up about fighting for the rebels. Fighting with the rebels (the group opposing Assad) is just as bad, if not worse, than siding with Assad. A rebel victory would be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. This is because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Also, Israel could not expect tranquility on the northern border if the rebel extremists were to win in Syria (1). In addition to this, I agree with what could become of this. If we strike Syria, the possibility of a large scale war is very strong. Vladimir Putin declared already that he is already supplying arms to Assad and vowed to step up support if a planned missile attack goes ahead (2). The last thing we want is a full scale war with Russia for gosh sakes. Patrick makes many valid arguments that I strongly agree with. Forceful intervention in Syria is not the answer.
Works Cited:
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=0
2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414139/Syria-Russia-vows-help-Syria-America-carries-military-strikes-Assad-s-regime.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Kyle J.'s post:
I agree with Kyle's belief that the US should not get involved with Syria. One point Kyle makes is that war in Syria would be too costly at a time when the US is already facing a budget crisis. To add to his argument, I would point out that the total cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts is expected to exceed 4 trillion US dollars (2). Sending US forces would add billions in costs to the already strained US budget/ debt. I would disagree with Kyle's claim that the US is vulnerable to cyber attacks after the NSA leaks. Iran has spent years developing its computer capabilities and has been able to cause only a few minor headaches (1). For this reason, I would discount any idea that Syria could pose a serious cyber threat. In conclusion I will agree with Kyle, and say that the US should not involve itself with Syria, but I say this because I still believe US involvement wouldn't help bring the crisis to an end and would only result in even more deaths.
1.http://www.firstpost.com/world/us-threat-syria-to-retaliate-with-cyber-attack-1068733.html
2.http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/29/nation/la-na-0329-war-costs-20130329
In Response to Putin’s NY Times Editorial:
Despite any negative opinions on Russia’s government and Putin’s questionable motives, his editorial offers thought provoking and surprisingly reasonable arguments. As suggested in a Moscow Times article, Putin is using supposed benevolence to mask his true motives of preventing US intervention. While Putin may attempt to act as a protector of the UN and democracy, he is truly trying to ensure that “his puppet Assad” continues to remain in power and suggest that US power is in decline (1). However, no matter what his motives may be, Putin’s arguments are completely logical. I agree with Putin’s claim that intervention could lead to further instability in the Middle East. Intervention would further polarize the sides in Syria and make any political agreement increasingly difficult (2). Putin’s argument that intervention would cause international law to become unbalanced is also legitimate. As Alistair Crook told NPR, intervention could cause a “deepening of the geostrategical competition” (2). This means that America would be isolated in conflict against Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Not only would international competition be deepened but the United States would also be undermining the power of the UN. As Putin points out, no one wants the UN to dissolve like the League of Nations. International law would become compromised in complete disregard of the UN. I fully support Putin’s plea to further negotiations between America and Russia. I truly believe that we cannot force long-lasting peace, democracy, and liberty on other countries through violence and destruction. The United States’ political strike will only lead to further violence and international turmoil.
1) http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/putins-new-york-times-blunder/486234.html
2) http://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/216355786/alastair-crooke-comments-on-syria
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Maddy S.'s post in favor of attacking Syria:
While I understand why you believe that military strikes are the best action to take in Syria, I disagree with a few of the arguments you use to support your view. Rather than ensuring that "other powers that support Syria...don't join forces against us," I believe that military action would push other nations to retaliate. Iran, a strong ally of the Assad regime, has promised a military response to the U.S. if Syria is attacked (1). They have warned that they would not hesitate to destroy U.S. facilities and installations in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and Western Asia, as well as to attack American allies like Israel (1). Some may see these as empty threats; however, the U.S. has intercepted messages from Iranian officials with direct instructions to carry out these attacks in the case of American intervention (1). I also think it is important to keep in mind that if the U.S. did take action in Syria, the goal of strikes would be purely to uphold the international norm against chemical weapons (2). It is true that "military strikes on Syria will probably not end the civil war" because the strikes would be focused on showing Assad that the use of chemical weapons did not go unnoticed and hopefully making other countries who possess similar weapons reconsider using them in the future (2). Any military action that the U.S. has considered so far would not directly involve taking one side or another in the civil war, punishing Assad for other violence against civilians, or attempting to topple the Assad regime, so while it is entirely cruel and unacceptable that Assad is treating civilians with such brutality, it is essential to keep the issues of chemical weapon use and the civil war completely separate when considering whether or not the U.S. should take military action (2).
(1) http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/10/iran-threatens-widespread-retaliation-against-u-s-and-allies/
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/obama-wants-to-punish-assad-not-win-the-syrian-civil-war/
In response to Carolyn J’s post, I disagree with her point in conducting a military strike on Syria. I understand and agree that using chemical weapons is not an okay thing to do, but I still believe that we should not authorize the President’s plan. Conducting the air strike brings can great risks to our country. If we do intervene in Syria it could risk a constitutional crisis with lawmakers who are ahead of other confrontations over raising the U.S. debt, funding the government, and the immigration law (2). Our domestic issues are still important too and we need focus more on them, and going into Syria would be an extreme cost (2). We do not know for sure if conducting these strikes would even prevent further chemical weapons attack (2). It would also be very difficult for the U.S to not get further involved in the situation if Syria decides to retaliate (2).Getting into the conflict will be a repeat of the Iraq war, and it could cause instability in the region area and loose prospects for peace (4). Many members of Congress are against conducting the strikes in Syria. Republican Alan Grayson even believes that a vote to use military force in Syria would fail (1). As Carolyn pointed out, Syria’s use of chemical weapons has been killing many people. The United Nations say that more than 100,000 people have been killed in Syria since 2011 (3). Its obviously not a good thing, but lives are lost everyday. Right now even with the chemical weapons agreement with Syria, the situation is still not getting much better, there is still bloodshed (3). There is a war going on there and it causes more casualties than just the use of chemical weapons (2). The U.S. involvement in Syria would only bring more casualties and brings too many risks for our country, therefore we should not conduct a military strike in Syria.
1.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/constituents-syria-intervention_n_3876766.html
2.http://news.yahoo.com/ap-survey-house-shows-opposition-syria-attack-203001578--politics.html;_ylt=A2KLOzHnSjpSbDgAecHQtDMD
3.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/world/meast/syria-whats-next/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
4.http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/meast/syria-how-did-we-get-here/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
In response to Putin's editorial:
Although I cannot even pretend to understand what it is like to run a country, I can ensure you that yes, the law is the law, but there are other ways to enforce it other than killing innocent people. If "no one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria," then you have to be aware of the fact that someone is not going to be pleased with those actions (1). Your wording in your response makes the US appear to be a brutal enemy of all who only looks to spread our "wondrous democratic power." While this may be true at times in the past, our current interest in Syria is not based off of our own interests. We are concerned with the well-being of all humans, and military intervention did seem like the right idea in the heat of the chemical warfare usage. Yes, I agree that America's intervention is not in the best interest of the people especially since "civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect (1)." I also understand that we have more options other than military intervention, such as addressing Syria's willingness to give up their chemical weapons. I am not the only one who sees our other options: Obama and the United Nations are more than willing to cooperate with this option, so your accusations of "Millions around the world increasingly see America... as relying on brute force (1)," are irrelevant. We do not attack without cause, and our main goal is to protect, not to take over. I completely agree that avoiding force in Syria is our best option for a peaceful negotiation, and I believe that we can set a good example for the future on how to deal with difficult foreign affairs if we handle this one correctly.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I have elected to reply to Mr. Vladimir Putin’s, and I do have to say, I agree with it wholeheartedly. My biggest point I have to agree with is don’t attack, because you’ll drag all the surroundings into this. And you want to know something? That is absolutely correct. It’s not two sides fighting anymore, it’s many sides. The forces’ ranks are being swelled by jihadists and non-democratic soldiers. (Guardian) A thousand units are on rebel side, and, while some may want a democratic society, some definitely do not. AL-Qaida is joining in. Al-Muhajarin, a newer jihadist group, is on the scene. Many foreign jihadists groups are going into Syria and fighting for their own reasons. This is really damn big. If the US crashes into this, it WILL start another wave of terror attacks as various groups exert their animosity with anything that demonstrates control over their lives. It would be a huge disaster, and the full ramifications for such actions will be felt for years and years to come, with ruined relations and destroyed lives. This thing is a hell of a lot bigger that just some poison gas. Sure, the gas is bad, the resentment will be worse, far worse, and we are dealing with people who will make their opinions known, and have made them as such. It would be in the U.S.’s best interest to walk away from this whole mess and let it crash all on its own. This may be crueler than what you’re thinking, but right now, I’m pretty damn sure that to us, the American People are more important that the Syrian People at the moment. We spend more of our time wanting to play God with other nations, rather than focus on domestic issues that, for us, take precedence over the far-away folks who may not know what they are fighting for. Putin, you did a damn brilliant job on this, and McCain doesn’t even hold a stub of a candle against you.
Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/syria-war-stalemate-assad-rebels
In response to Caroline B's voting no for military action against Syria:
In Caroline's response, she discussed her reasons for why she would vote no, among them being the United States' poor record with wars in the Middle East, as well as the financial strain a military attack would put on the nation. I agree with these reasons to an extent, but I still believe the United States should carry out a military strike against Syria. President Obama said himself during his address to the nation, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were poorly carried out. But he also gave his word that he "will not put American boots on the ground in Syria." (1) He will not authorize open-ended actions such as the ones that brought about the lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor will he approve of a prolonged air campaign like what happened in Libya and Kosovo. This gives me confidence that any action the United States decides to take against Syria will not turn out like previous wars and interventions. In regards to her second point about the financial strain that a military strike would put on our already large deficit, I believe that the United States should do what is right ethically and morally, despite the cost. Congress has had plenty of chances to rectify the national budget and reduce the enormous deficit, but so far they have only been able to agree to deal with it later. Money will always be a problem. When we look back at history, there have been plenty of times when we have said "why didn’t we do something?"-the Rwandan genocide, the genocide carried out by Saddam Hussein. We didn’t do anything until it was too late, partly because of how much it was going to cost us (2). I don't want to look back on this conflict 15 years from now and wonder why we as a nation did not do something to stop the use of chemical weapons. The United States has the opportunity to stop a horrible situation from getting any worse now.
(1) http://www.npr.org/2013/09/10/221186456/transcript-president-obamas-address-to-the-nation-on-syria
(2) http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
In response to President Obama's concern about the use of chemical weapons:
Mr. President, I think it is reasonable and justified that you are concerned that Assad’s regime will continue using chemical weapons if we do not stop him. However, there are alternative answers to this problem, other than military action. For example, recently Russia has promised that they would pressure their ally, Syria, for a chemical weapon hand over (1). That is a much better solutions to the problem compared to warfare. At the same time France is discussing a draft resolution for the situation. The resolution would pressure Syria to state the location and the amount of the chemical weapons they own, also to provide all other chemical warfare related records; within 15 days. The draft would also order an inspection of the chemical weapons on the site(1). If these two solutions are successful, it would be more beneficial compared to military action. A civilized solution can prevent warfare and solve problems effectively, while military action will just cause more chaos.
1. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/us-syria-russian-chemical-weapons-handover
For anyone just now learning of the conflict in Syria, President Putin probably seems like the smartest person to turn to based on his recent editorial in the New York Times. However, not being new to the conflict, I must disagree with his seemingly calm but actually unhelpful call to disarms. Putin first mentions the close relationship between the US and Russia, reminding the world of our alliance during WWII (1). This clear attempt to appeal to our emotions successfully evoked my emotion of annoyance. Russia and the US are friends, the world get its. Yes, we fought together; yes, we’ve overcome a cold war against each other; yes, we’re friends today; and even when we don’t like each other we realize that we can’t afford not to be friends so we make up and move on. Moving beyond the opening paragraph Putin essentially provides two things: a worst case scenario and an outdated solution. His worst case scenario involves the idea that if the US were to aid the opposition then we’d essentially be aiding terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda (1). Thank you, President Putin, for your generous warning that Middle Eastern extremists are living in the Middle East. While I am not privy to all of the information on Syria I have a good deal of confidence that our government is going to great lengths to assure that no terrorist groups will rise to power. As for citing past wars that have involved terrorists gaining some kind of power, however minute, well its time to live in the present. The world can never judge what is going to happen based on what already has. As for Putin’s call for a diplomatic solution I think it is an excellent idea, just as I thought it was an excellent idea last year when the US was using diplomatic strategies to reason with the Assad regime. I’m afraid the diplomatic road is coming to a dead end and the US must investigate alternate routes. At a certain point diplomatic negotiations start becoming wasted breath (1). While I disagree with Putin’s stance on the matter I recognize one thing, and that is the position Russia is in. It is never fun when friends fight, and it becomes more complicated when the drama is played out on the world stage Regardless of my feels about the editorial, it was extremely well written and played to the logic of both Syria and the US, albeit a year too late. Putin, known for being straight forward and perhaps a little crude, is doing a decent job of walking on eggshells.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putin-syria-chemical-attack-sly-rebel-provocation-20304714
In response to President Putin’s editorial:
Although I personally disagree with many of Putin’s actions and stances in terms of his own domestic policy, his editorial is surprisingly reasonable and well-thought-out. His diction in this editorial is, however, overly antagonistic towards the United States. This issue is incredibly complex, and as such I do not believe there was ever a positive route to take—only the least negative one. If the United States’ initial response to the use of a weapon of mass destruction was a threat of violence, I do not believe that makes us the enemy. This is especially the case since we are not looking to spread our own political ideology with this violence, only to punish the use of chemical weapons and therefore further encourage worldwide safety. Although we should consider peaceful options before violent intervention, no peaceful option was readily available at that point, and the fact that violent intervention is an option does not make us evil. Now that peaceful negotiations have appeared, both the United Nations and President Obama are more than willing to pursue them, so Putin’s attacks in that regard are unfounded.
I completely support avoiding violent intervention as long as the negotiations are going well. That being said, however, it would not surprise me in the slightest to find out that Putin is simply trying to postpone U.S. intervention with these negotiations. It is a widely-known fact that Putin and Assad have a very close relationship that is greatly beneficial to Russia—plenty of reason for Putin to go to great lengths in order to maintain his relationship with Assad. Despite the fact that I sincerely doubt his motives, though, I do agree with Putin’s factual claims in this editorial, especially insofar as the dangers of violating the United Nations’ international law. This is particularly dangerous as the United States has frequently broken U.N. regulations in the past.
Therefore I do agree that Russia should continue negotiations with Syria; even if his motives are underhanded, Putin seems to be attempting to ensure peace in the region. If his only underhanded motive is for Assad to remain in power, I have no problem with that result: the alternatives would most likely only encourage turmoil and further chaos. I do believe, however, that the Russian negotiations must be contingent on removal of chemical weapons from Syria, as that offense is the central reason for this entire conflict and must be punished in some way so that it does not occur again.
1. http://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/216355786/alastair-crooke-comments-on-syria
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html
In response to Madeline Simonet's post:
In Madeline's response she discussed her reason of why she thought the U.S should intervene in Syria. I completely agree with Maddy that we need to intervene in Syria. A couple points that we both mentioned were the use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity/ inhumane, and we must stop it. Also, the death rate in Syria keeps getting higher and higher and it will only get worse. A good point Maddy made was " Russia is enabling Syria’s government to do the deeds that they are doing by providing lots of weapons that make it easier for Assad to keep killing civilians and will make it much harder if the outside world ever wants to intervene" (1). More and more innocent people are dying and the U.S should intervene before a large-scale civil war breaks out and it will be too late to do anything. I also believe, like Maddy, that military action is the best course of action. This situation in Syria needs to be stopped and Assad needs to be afraid of us. He also needs to be punished for his inhumane acts. The U.S should intervene in Syria immediately, before it is too late.
1. http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/03/218587228/which-bad-syria-option-do-you-prefer
In response to Carolyn J, I would like to highlight the fact that there is no definitive evidence that proves it was the Assad regime that launched chemical weapons on civilians in Syria. While the United States claims to have irrefutable evidence, it continues for now to be just that: a claim. The evidence has not been shared publicly, and though Secretary of State John Kerry says the recent UN report supports the assertion that Assad was responsible for the use of chemical weapons, the report itself confirms only that chemical weapons were in fact used, not who used them (1). Though some may argue that the missiles used were similar to weapons used by the Syrian government in the past (which is a valid point), we must also take into account that the Syrian rebels have captured a considerable number of government weapons (1). It should also be mentioned that there are multiple rebel groups in Syria, who are fighting not only against the Assad regime, but also with each other (2). Some of these rebel factions are linked to al-Qaeda, and the recent violent conflicts between the Free Syrian Army and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (both armed rebel groups) makes the possibility of rebels launching chemical weapons more plausible (3). Also, there is a high possibility of civilian casualties if the United States did in fact strike Syria, which in my mind is a hypocritical way of punishing Assad for his crimes against humanity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24130181 (1)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24140475 (2)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24160189 (3)
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to President Obama's speech:
I can agree entirely with your points about chemical weapons being horrifying and immoral, but I still don’t not agree with the idea that military involvement is the best response. When you say “a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran”, I ask how you know this? This is not a good reason to get involved in a complicated civil war, it is simply conjecture. When you say “ I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons,” how are you so sure the proposed attack in Syria will not make us responsible like we were in Iraq? It may not be likely, but that is not a chance I want the United States taking, and I think many others agree. You also say “But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.” This is probably true, but I’m not so sure that Al-Qaeda won’t also draw strength from US involvement in a civil war. In fact, they may be upset and use chemical weapons that they have in their control. (1) The way I see it, it is probably a lose-lose situation on this topic and isn’t a point that should lead us to involvement. Overall, many of the arguments you make for involvement may have unintended consequences that I don’t believe are worth the risk.
Works Cited:
1. http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-rebels-have-sarin-980/
In response to Obama’s Editorial:
I do agree that Assad has committed atrocities during the war. But the rebels have been commiting atrocities as well. Putin has it right in that we shouldn’t use force and start another conflict. No other country outside of France has voted to support us, which shows that the strong international opposition you mentioned to the gas is not there. The Un states that the rebels have used human shields and have taken hostages, which are severe breaches in international law. We wouldn’t be able to help either side because the extremist factions, as proven in Libya and Iraq, will continue to cause trouble for a government that we recognize long after the standard war is over. Each side has an extremist faction supporting it. Helping the rebels will only cause the instability to continue, because Assad is currently on the winning side of the war. If we use force, even without boots, it could possibly drag us into a war with Iran, who supports Assad. There would have to be boots on the ground and that war would end up very much like the Iraq War. Assad has chosen to give up his stores of sarin gas. It is up to the UN inspectors to make sure that every single bottle is removed from his stores. According to the CDC, Sarin gas is a much cleaner chemical than most other chemicals used in warfare. It evaporates quickly and will not cause permanent damage to survivors. Using it is no different than bleeding out during conventional warfare. But if he did use it on civilians, and not a rebel stronghold, I would agree that some action should be taken, but nothing to instigate a further war. A missile launched in Damascus could have unforeseen side effects, like a retaliation here in the states. This is not a matter of national security, and we are in the rebuilding stage of a major depression that hit the whole planet. We have a deficit in the trillions because of the exponentially enlarged defense budget over the last 12 years. Some of the money used trying to figure out Syria could be used to fix internal problems, like stopping a government shutdown. Congress need to remain focused on the domestic problems that have arisen. We simply can’t go into another conflict and ask for more loans on the 17 trillion dollar debt. People here are sick of the war, if you wanted to listen to the people, there is overwhelming opposition to the war. And we can’t enter a war without the will to win it.
Obama’s transcript: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-10/politics/41939044_1_chemical-weapons-poison-gas-sarin-gas
Putin’s Transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
CDC: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/basics/facts.asp
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/world/meast/un-syria-report/index.html
I am responding to Tannah Z.’s post. I completely agree with the arguments that Tannah used as to why the United States should intervene in Syria. For the most part, we both had the same arguments, one of the main ones being that the use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity and because no other country had the nerve to step in, the United States needed to step up and be the one to say it is not right. Another point that we both had in common is the fact that Russia has been aiding Syria with weapons to use against their OWN people (1). We need to intervene before the Russian forces form against the U.S or else things will get messier then they already are. An interesting point that Tannah made in her post was that “The death toll in Syria is past 7,000 civilians, and the Syrian people are begging for assistance” (2). This shows that innocent people are being killed in this civil war. This statement also goes to show that the civilians in Syria are practically begging for help. They can’t fight this war alone, with Russia supplying Assad with weapons to use against them (1). They are currently all by themselves and they need a country to come to their aid, which is where the United States comes in. Like Tannah said, the situation in Syria cannot be ignored.This action of intervening in Syria will show Assad that his actions are inhumane and will not go without punishment. America has no choice, but to intervene.
(1) http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/03/218587228/which-bad-syria-option-do-you-prefer
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-ouyang/why-the-us-should-interve_b_3869698.html
I am responding to Micalas post about sending troops into Syria. I think this idea is fundamentally flawed. Originally in Vietnam the troops were there to facilitate and protect humanitarian efforts. However, what ultimately ends up happening is that once a group is attacked, of course the troops will fight back. This leads to a precarious situation for the US government and Syrian government to deal with. No government will let troops be killed. Now we have a full on war on our hands. Also, even President Obama does not see using ground troops if a strike occurred [1]. Also, if the United States were to send troops, it would be seen as an occupation rather than a liberation according to opinion polls in the region [2].
On the refugee camp option, roughly one million refugees have already fled the country [3]. These camps are arguably safe and there would be little that could be done to improve them that wouldn't involve US troops which has already been proven to be a bad idea.
Finally, peer pressure is already being applied. The problem is that Syria has allies in Russia and Iran. Russia has a vote on the UN Security Counsel which stops pretty much all sanctions that could be placed on Syria. It is pretty clear that Assad does not care if countries are telling him to stop, we have been doing that from the beginning. Since Assad has allies, even if sanctions somehow were passed, he would not feel much pain as long as his allies stuck with him.
Because of these various issues, I still believe that the United States should stay completley out of the civil war. It does not concern us and we should focus on problems back home.
[1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-doesnt-foresee-us-ground-troops-syria
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/nine-reasons-we-should-be-slow-to-militarily-intervene-in-syria-2012-6
[3] http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/middleeast/syrian-refugees
In response to Putin’s editorial I find his reasoning valid and something America should consider. He starts by pointing out that the US and Russia have been on rocky terms before, but we were also allies once against the Nazis. This is true, we have not always been on the best of terms, but as two strong countries, when we work together it is easier to accomplish our goals. He warns that a strike on Syria will increase conflict in the Middle East and North Africa. An intercepted order from Iran shows that if the US goes through with their strike on Syria they will attack the US, a likely target is the US embassy in Baghdad (1). If the strike occurs more groups will get involved and a larger scale of war could occur. Putin goes on to say that the US will be blatantly disregarding international law with the strike. Striking Syria is not legal according to UN rules. Military strikes can only occur in self defense or if the UN Security Council approves it, which they have not. By attacking Syria the US would show that powerful countries only seem to pay attention to international law when it suits them (2). This is not a precedent the US should be setting for the rest of the world. Putin concludes his editorial by saying if force can be avoided by the talks with the Syrians then it “will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust.” If this conflict can be solved peacefully shouldn’t that be the route we take. Don’t we want to be able to say we tried peace before force. After reading Putin’s reasoning I agree with his argument and hope that the US does not conduct a military strike on Syria.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/us-iran-syria_n_3877515.html
(2) http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/05/obamas-plan-for-intervention-in-syria-is-illegal/
In response to Sam G.'s post against attacking Syria:
To begin with, your first reason for not intervening with Syria is applied with evidence that is questionable at best. In your argument you say, "Iran has considered retaliating against the US embassy in Baghdad," when in fact the source you got this from quotes an un-named US official, (which is only slightly better than speculation), who said that, "Iran 'may be planning' a retaliatory strike" (1). Since your information is not credited to a viable and credited source, the evidence and your claim do not match, and you do not have any additional evidence to back your claim, I argue that your first claim has no credible stance in this debate. Your second claim, built with your first claim, which has already been established to be false, is that Russia would side with Iran, because, "Iran has very close ties with Russia because Iran gets a significant amount of weapons from them." The specific claim here is that Russia would side with Iran, in a war that they started, against the US, because it is in their trade interests. This argument is incorrect, however, because if Russia was acting in the interests of trade they would certainly go with the 22.2 billion dollars of trade with the US (10 billion dollar net profit for Russia) (2) over the 3.7 billion dollars with Iran (3). The final point I will argue is how you mentioned that the US should not be trying to punish Syria for using chemical weapons, because we have used them in the past. This argument would seem to make sense, but when applied to the real world it is a ludicrous process. If the US adopted this as its foreign policy than we would not be concerned with militant governments trying to obtain and use atomic weapons (like we did in 1941-1945), condemn acts of genocide (like we did with the American Indians), or condemn acts of torture (that we have performed on unconvinced prisoners of war).
If it is not already clear I do not agree with your argument. I believe it is not supported by evidence and has no solid ground to stand on.
Work Cited:
1. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/07/iran-may-be-planning-to-retaliate-if-u-s-strikes-syria-official-says/?iref=allsearch
2. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4621.html
3. http://tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=213679 ---Hopefully this didn't put me on some watch list----
In response to Russian President V. Putin, I find I must choose to agree with his stance that military interference in Syria would only serve to further destabilize the region and America’s own international relations. I do however acknowledge that Putin is likely looking out for his own interests in publishing his opinion, as American interference would likely impact Russian footholds in Syria. (1) In Putin’s commentary, he mentions the United Nations, and how it is important for the member nations with veto power to respect the laws put in place, otherwise the system falls apart due to a lack of discipline. If the United States continues to decide that it is a good idea to completely ignore the U.N., a system for international government that the U.S. also claims to uphold, then that system loses validity with other nations, as it will become clear that the U.N. really doesn’t have any power at all, and that they are in fact useless, meaningless, and superfluous. The only way that the U.N. can be used as a proper organization for managing international relations, is if the people continue to believe that they can actually make a difference. He also brings up the fact that Syria isn’t a democratic nation, and that the rebels aren’t specifically fighting for democracy. (2) It is important to remember that the Assad regime is just that, a regime. It is also important to remember that more than a few of the rebel groups are also led by extremist regimes, and that if Assad falls, it is very likely one of these will simply take his place and continue to oppress the people. What we need to do right now is absolutely nothing, because any way you look at it, the only outcome seen in intervention is the possible replacement of one oppressive government with a likely even more oppressive government, the further destabilization of the region, and the further deterioration America’s ability to successfully conduct international policy. For these reasons, I believe that it would be wise to take heed of Mr. Putin’s request, and not invade Syria.
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601648/russia-cancels-syria-lobbying-mission-to-d.c.-more-russian-war-ships-reportedly-head-for-mediterranean/
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=all
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Maddy's post advocating military intervention in Syria, I understand your reasoning for a few of your points, but I do not believe that they can justify an attack. For example, I agree that "using chemical weapons against one's own country, like President Bashar al-Assad has done to the people of Syria, is an inhumane act". But what I think many people fail to realize is that the number of people who have actually been killed by chemical weapons amounts to less than 2% of the more than 100,000 people who have died in the war (1). The majority of these deaths have been caused by conventional weapons that continue to be used daily (1). Therefore, I do not believe that the United States can justify military intervention in Syria specifically based on their use of chemical weapons alone. Additionally, I acknowledge your view that Russia is Syria's most important ally, but I personally do not think that the U.S. needs to worry about the two nations joining together against the United States. After all, it was Russia that initially suggested that Syria's chemical weapons be brought under international control (1). Although the Russian President claims that it was not proven that the Syrian government was behind the fatal chemical weapons attack in Damascus (2), I believe that they are not saying in this in order to protect Syria alone, but in order to prevent a destructive attack from the United States. As of this past weekend, the governments of Russia and the U.S. have unveiled a US-Russian plan, one that would disarm the Syrian government, and one that President Putin has strong confidence in (2). All in all, I acknowledge the points that you made in favor of American military intervention, but I still do not believe that they are good reasons to invade Syria.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/parsing-syria-developments-ahead-of-obamas-address.html?_r=0
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24166891
I am choosing to respond to Maddy S.
She has cited three reasons for why she agrees with Obama’s planned military strikes. I am in opposition to her argument. She used these sources in her work.
(1) http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/03/218587228/which-bad-syria-option-do-you-prefer
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_pop
(3) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/your-cheat-sheet-to-the-syrian-conflict.html
As for the argument that we should invade or strike from a humanitarian and moral point of view, I disagree but understand why she feels this way. What Assad has done is awful, and should never be the case between a people and its rulers/government. However, it seems the people of Syria don’t want us there for anything other than humanitarian efforts (2). Any sort of military attack could fracture an already shaky trust in a country where most people don’t believe America “is a friend to the Syrian people” (4). This would make it hard to ever again convince them we want to help maintain peace, and undermine our whole reason for going. Besides, this conflict is already affecting nearby countries like Turkey and Lebanon (1), and may even be playing into al-Assad’s plans if rumors are true (3). By using chemical warfare he is ensuring that other countries become concerned, including the U.S., and knows he is committing political suicide if he ever wanted to bargain or receive help (3). Therefore, we can assume that he is planning on staying for the long haul, making this a long, drawn out war with many casualties to come and little bargaining to do until some of the rebels work together.
As for the reason of protecting our image as unafraid, and stopping Russian, Iran, and Syria from joining forces – this seems like another mistake. It actually seems to give them reason to join up against us IF we step in (3). Not only that, but stepping in may cause a backlash amongst the common people of Syria, and spur their support for the al-Assad regime (2). Besides, not stepping in may force the surrounding countries to finally say enough is enough and help their neighbor in order to avoid destruction and further involuntary involvement (1).
In response to President Putin’s editorial;
I agree with the argument you are making on how the United Nations should deal with the conflict in Syria. You mentioned that our country and yours needs to set aside any differences we may have and band together to form a strong United Nations. I think you are correct in your ideals. This could be the perfect opportunity for the US and the Soviet Union to move past any harsh feelings we still have concerning the Cold War. I also personally think that us showing better cooperation with other countries could boost our standing among other world powers. Another issue that you point out is the recent evidence that the attack using Sarin gas may have been rebel forces (1). While nothing is certain, the fact that it creates questionable doubt to me is a good reason to avoid sending in troops. The fact the gas was used is an issue, but now we need to solve whom it may have been set off by (1). Until we have substantial evidence to who attacked the civilians, I agree it may be best to take a diplomatic route and let Russia talk to Syria about how to solve the chemical weapons issue. I do however disagree that US involvement would lead to another World War II. Comparing the United Nations to the League of Nations is a stretch. The League sat back and did little to stop Germany, whereas the United Nations is currently taking a more proactive front by not turning its back on the obvious conflict in Syria (2). I do not believe your dismal prediction will come true.
1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
2. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/leagueofnations.htm
As for the last point, it has been made clear military strikes WON’T stop this war, or probably even make it better (2). This is also cited in one of her sources. In another source, which I can sadly no longer find, Obama and other strike supporters have even been said to have acknowledged the fact that the strikes won’t, and aren’t meant, to end of slow the war, but to punish al-Assad. The problem with punishing a government is this: that is also a punishment for the people, but usually ten-fold. Besides, with America training rebels they aren’t even sure are on our side (2) and giving them weapons, it seems that weakening the current government really just means allowing a new potentially dangerous, volatile, or impotent group into power, once again by American aid. This isn’t the first time we’ve made this mistake. I’d hate to see it made again.
I vote no to any strikes in Syria, and yes to humanitarian efforts, which Syrians approve (2). I believe it would be wrong to do anything else to further the devastation in that country. If we help, and after more war decide we are more capable and willing to strike, then maybe it will be the correct timing because Syria may be ready for us. They may trust us more, agree with a military strike, the strike may have a better ability to end the war, and the rebels may finally be capable of pulling together to build a new country. However, anything before then will simply smash any trust we have there to bits, and end any future aid we may be able to provide.
(1) http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Syria-tragedy-a-turning-point-for-West/-/1637132/21967860/-/tupewa/-/index.html
(2) http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/03/218587228/which-bad-syria-option-do-you-prefer
(3) http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/what-if-assad-wants-u-s-to-bomb-syria/
(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-rivers/syrian-public-opinion_b_3915550.html
In response to Peter K.’s post against attacking Syria I have a couple points I would like to make. While I agree with you in your over-arching point, when it comes down to your key points I have issues. Your first point was that the American public does not support using force to punish Syria. I would like to share with you a small history of America’s views on past wars. 3 out of 4 times Americans made the “wrong choice” in favoring or opposing a war (1). I use the word “wrong” because either they supported a war that inevitably turned into a disaster, or they opposed a war that was fairly successful, (or as successful as wars can be). If you were a betting man, would you bet on something that had a 25% success rate? Neither would I. Your second point was that, “there are much more important issues here at home we need to focus on.” One of these important issues for you was the “soaring deficit,” I would like to point out that deficits are not necessarily bad, they are a natural part of a capital economy. Also, the deficit is being reduced so really no problem in what you call a “soaring deficit” (2). You also made a point that scandals were a big issue at home, and for Obama. However, the NSA and IRS “scandals” were not under Obama’s control. They were simply his “scandals” because they are executive agencies. When it comes to Bangazi, I’m almost positive Obama cleared the air on that one during the debate with Romney. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kbv7H_Sp-U. If anyone is too lazy to watch the video Obama states, No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. You also stated that another key issue at home is the weak economy. The housing market and the stock market are both recovering (3/4). Your third major point was that we do not have enough evidence to know what is truly going on. I would like to pass on a statement by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who called the findings “beyond doubt and beyond the pale,” and a clear evidence of a war crime (5). You stated your fourth point as, “the question of whether this is an important issue of humanity to Obama, or is it a political stunt to make himself seem as more of a strong and decisive leader.” I don’t quite understand how anyone could think that a person elected to the highest office in the United States could be a completely inhumane person and use the horrific deaths of innocent victims to “gain leverage” Frankly I find that opinion completely disrespectful, and furthermore does not have any evidence to support it. I’m not sure where you found this piece of “evidence.” I acknowledge that you do not believe we should intervene in Syria, and I’m right there with you. I just think differently about the reasons for staying out.
(1) http://www.gallup.com/poll/164282/support-syria-action-lower-past-conflicts.aspx
(2) https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/glance.htm
(3) http://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2012/10/08/real-estate-forecast-2013-the-housing-market/
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?_r=1&
(5) http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-16/world/42090392_1_opcw-chemical-stockpiles-sarin
This comment has been removed by the author.
In this post I will be responding to the article written by the Russian President, Putin, in the New York Times.
I find Putin's viewpoint on trying to find a diplomatic end to the conflict in Syria vastly more appealing than the other options. Putin specifically references there is no real winner, nor is this conflict going to be solved by the use of bombs no matter how strategically placed. The "war zone" would be homes and places of business for so many that have already suffered so much, and it seems that this conflict would only turn into yet another Iraq situation. I especially appreciate the fact that Putin points out that it would be detrimental to the United Nations validity for the US to break their laws and go against their wishes. Although it seems hypocritical, Putin also references that all people are created equal, taking notice of how America has no right to force themselves into the situation more than needed to help the people of Syria, which is just what military action there would be.
Syria already is on board with coming up to code with UN regulations (1), which should even the playing field of the rebellion. The US would be benefited from staying out of the disputes between these factions after they are equalized, and supporting the better party when the dust finally settles.
1)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/opinion/a-diplomatic-proposal-for-syria.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
In Response to Josh P.T.’s post:
I understand where you are coming from and you made some very good points for your arguements. However, I still disagree with your choice to vote for President Obama’s plan to perform strikes on Syria. In your first point, you said that the United Nations should stand stiffly behind their ban of chemical weapons. There has to be an emphasis on the “United Nations”. The truth is, as I mentioned in my post, we don’t exactly have the money to execute military strikes, much less start a war. (1) Even though not acting in Syria could be considered not moral, we must think with our heads and not our hearts. If someone is going to put an end to this it needs to be The United Nations, not solely the Untied States. Chemical weapons are also a tricky subject. Who is to say Assad would not retaliate and try to use their chemical weapons on us? For this reason I think it is important to use up all peaceful negotiations before even thinking about military action. As you also mentioned, Obama said that no ground troops would be sent. However, seven out of ten believe more conflicts would result from this and two-thirds believe that the U.S. would eventually send ground troops. (2) My last point involves your argument that Assad would not start an altercation with the United States because it would jeopardize his power. Leaders who come to rule by force are often power-thirsty individuals. They yearn to show their dominance. Though Assad may not want to start something with the United States, I don’t believe that he would back down from a challenge. He would not have to start an altercation, we would be doing that by taking part in military strikes.
1.) http://www.usdebtclock.org/#
2) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/09/cnn-poll-why-its-not-worth-attacking-syria/?iref=allsearch
In response to Peter K’s post:
I am in complete accordance to Peter’s views on Syria. The first point Peter makes is the lack of American support President Obama’s plan has to invade Syria. With such a staggering number against it I personally believe that it should be a red flag in its own to not intervene. There is no need to spend American dollars nor spill American blood to end a war that has no direct affects on us. His second point made is that there are plenty of issues we need to tend to at home to begin with. For instance our struggling economy or the $16 trillion deficit we have dug ourselves into (1). We need to get our own ducks in a row before we can go out and begin messing with other foreign affairs. The third point made was the lack of information provided on the topic. There were reports from both the Syrian government who accused rebels of using the chemical weapons on themselves and rebels have accused its government of attacking them with the weapons(3). If rebels did use the weapons it could be a trap to summon U.S or other outside aid to help them overthrow the government. What truly happened still remains unclear and I believe it would be best if we found out what actually did happen before we get too hasty and rush right in. Peter’s fourth point and I believe the most important was the threat if U.S did strike Syria Iran would attack U.S embassies and allies such as Israel in return (2). Knowing Iran is a strong supporter of the Assad regime I would take this threat quite seriously. If Iran does keep true to its promise there will be even more bloodshed and a larger problem to worry about than there already is. For these reasons the U.S has no need to intervene for the time being. We should forget the idea of physically invading Syria completely until facts are straightened out and we take care of our own agenda in the U.S first.
1)http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-03/total-us-debt-hits-1636954879960493-debt-ceiling-just-63-billion-away
2)http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/10/iran-threatens-widespread-retaliation-against-u-s-and-allies/
3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995
In response to Peter K’s post:
I am in complete accordance to Peter’s views on Syria. The first point Peter makes is the lack of American support President Obama’s plan has to invade Syria. With such a staggering number against it I personally believe that it should be a red flag in its own to not intervene. There is no need to spend American dollars nor spill American blood to end a war that has no direct affects on us. His second point made is that there are plenty of issues we need to tend to at home to begin with. For instance our struggling economy or the $16 trillion deficit we have dug ourselves into (1). We need to get our own ducks in a row before we can go out and begin messing with other foreign affairs. The third point made was the lack of information provided on the topic. There were reports from both the Syrian government who accused rebels of using the chemical weapons on themselves and rebels have accused its government of attacking them with the weapons(3). If rebels did use the weapons it could be a trap to summon U.S or other outside aid to help them overthrow the government. What truly happened still remains unclear and I believe it would be best if we found out what actually did happen before we get too hasty and rush right in. Peter’s fourth point and I believe the most important was the threat if U.S did strike Syria Iran would attack U.S embassies and allies such as Israel in return (2). Knowing Iran is a strong supporter of the Assad regime I would take this threat quite seriously. If Iran does keep true to its promise there will be even more bloodshed and a larger problem to worry about than there already is. For these reasons the U.S has no need to intervene for the time being. We should forget the idea of physically invading Syria completely until facts are straightened out and we take care of our own agenda in the U.S first.
1)http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-03/total-us-debt-hits-1636954879960493-debt-ceiling-just-63-billion-away
2)http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/10/iran-threatens-widespread-retaliation-against-u-s-and-allies/
3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995
I would like to respond to President Putin's address to the American people by saying that I agree, almost whole heatedly, with his view on the issue of Syria. There are 3 main reasons that I agree with him on deterring a US strike on Syria. These reasons are the legitimacy of International Law, the progress currently being made in negotiations and international relations, and the potential consequences if a strike were to occur.
On the topic of international law, Putin brings up a very good point. The League of Nations failed because it lacked leverage on the international stage. If the US bypasses the UN Security Counsel and strikes Syria, in full awareness of the protests from other political and religious leaders, the United Nations could meet the same fate. This would delegitimize the entire organization, and kill international relations. All the progress that has been made in terms of Syria agreeing to destroy their chemical arsenal would be lost, and that is a lose that we cannot afford. Our relations with Russia and other countries would also be jeopardized, which could lead to things like nuclear proliferation. If the UN is no longer seen as a powerful force, and international relations are compromised, other countries will proliferate in order to protect themselves. This would just be a scenario for more potential wars to begin in the future. In the end, I think that President Putin has very valid points for wanting Obama to call off the strikes on Syria. That being said, what has the world come to when VLADIMIR PUTIN is the most rational political leader in the world? I don't even want to know.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/20/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE98I12V20130920
In response to Maia H.:
I don't think that in order to maintain the U.S.'s intolerance of chemical weapons there needs to be physical action against Syria. There are many other ways to exert influence that the U.S. would be neglecting by conducting a strike on Syria.
Furthermore, I find the justification behind a strike weak considering what is known of the current situation. The fear of a future in which there is a disregard for American rule and people run rampant with chemical weapons is very abstract. Predictions of what will happen right now in the international community and in Syria as a result of a strike are much more concrete. Russia has laid out exactly what their reaction to a strike in Syria would be (it would "sharply aggravate" the situation (1)). To disregard what we know will happen in favor of what is a possible outcome in an unknown situation sometime in the future is a foolish decision. To me, it is better to make the right decision considering the circumstances rather than to set a precedent to follow no matter the circumstances.
1. http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/318731-russia-warns-obama-against-military-strike-in-syria
In response to A blog post previously written by one of my fellow classmates Solveig Svendson. She states since Russia has been in talk with Syria to rid them of their chemical weapons that we should just wait till the transaction takes place. The problem I have with the this argument is there are fifty thousand soldiers in the rebel forces in Syria and millions of refugees According to the New York Times; just the stop of chemical weapons still won't stop the inhumane acts carried out against the Syrian populace under the Assad regime. Over 100,000 people have died in this conflict according to the Huffington post and most of the civilians are women and children and a very small percentage of those have been killed from chemicals weapons. Just taking the weapons away won't make the killing of innocent people by their leader stop. I believe military assistance is necessary to prevent this and America is the only country with enough military power and pull to get the job done. We've helped many countries topple oppressive governments EX...Tripoli, Iraq. This is know different from those situations we can’t help one and not the other that has more of a negative affect on Americas Image than doing nothing at all.
In response to Andrew R's comment:
Yes I agree that Syria has killed many of their own citizens but that does not mean that we have to go in and kill more. By allowing an air strike we are giving President Obama permission to kill anybody that is within range. Andrew makes a great point to why we should attack Syria but what his argument is missing is how much all this is going to cost on top of the people we will be killing. In my argument I stated that we have already spent 160 billion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we allow this airstrike we will be spending tens of billions of dollars that the US does not have (1). There are both pros and cons to allowing an airstrike and not allowing it but in the long run, if we allow this airstrike it will affect the U.S and Syria more than it will if we do not allow it.
(1)http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/aftermath-us-intervention-syria-would-co st-billion/
In response to Jessica W’s opinion on Syria,
I agree with all of the points Jessica makes in her argument against action in Syria. It is very true that an attack on Syria is unpopular with Americans, Diplomatic measures can still be taken, and that cultural differences between the US and Syria will make fighting in Syria a difficult task for the US fighting force. However, I think that Jessica left out one key point: we cannot afford another war. After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is plagued with national debt (1). Another war in Syria will raise the debt by trillions more dollars if the same fighting strategies (limited warfare) are used. Even the limited strike that Obama is proposing will cost the US hundreds of millions of dollars (1). An ineffective attack that costs hundreds of millions of dollars is not something that I agree the national government should pursue.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/62271/war-with-syria-would-cost-how-much
In response to Vladimir Putin's Editorial:
While in many cases, America would be overjoyed to have Russia reaching out to them on a foreign relations level, the current climate and the content smack of insincerity. Putin says he does not wish for the UN to collapse under lack of power like the LoN, and speaks against any countries that refuse to wait for security council authorization, while his very country continues to stall and refuse to pass on the security council authorization. The reasons for his stalling are obvious, as the relationship between Syria and Russia are well established(1). The primary reason Putin wishes to not assist this revolution is that he is only interested in his own well being, as a new government has a high possibility of being hostile to his, and not allowing his country to continue placing troops in Syria. This ability to place political issues before humanitarian ones shows how artificial his statement is. Putin comes out trying to act as the reasoned, superior voice in his editorial, trying to focus the issues, while he himself is too embroiled in his own self-interest to realize what is really at stake.
http://www.cfr.org/syria/syria-us-russian-relations-three-things-know/p31353
Kelvin -
AP US Government & Politics: Response to Post #1
After reading Putin's editorial, it has only strengthened my stance against using military strikes against Syria. Such an attack by the United States would cause more harm than good. It would cause the situation to escalate a reach beyond the borders of Syria and release a new wave of terrorism (1). The United States has been fighting terrorism for over ten years now and the majority of the American people are tired of war and want to bring our soldiers home. If this attack were to happen it would destabilize the Middle East and put the United States into another war that we do not want to be in. I believe in protecting our borders from all threats, such as terrorism, but we must not act on the bases of fear but rather act with strategic precision and a careful understanding of the consequences of our actions. The United States has been intervening itself into too many international conflicts in which they try to play the role of the world police, and in the case of Syria, the United States should model their approach in a more diplomatic fashion instead of the use of brute force (1). It is important that the United States work closely with Russia, as they are allies with Syria, in order to resolve this conflict in a peaceful demeanor. Obama's response to Putin's post was, "I don't think that Mr. Putin has the same values that we do" (2) we must remember that the United States and Russia are working towards a common goal of reducing the amounts of weapons of mass destruction (3). It is in this common goal that the United States should join hands with Russia in promoting a peaceful resolve to this conflict.
Sources:
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
(2) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/obama-defends-shifting-syria-policy-im-less-concerned-about-style-points/
(3) http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/19/world/la-fg-wn-obama-nuclear-arms-reduction-20130619
From Tyler:
While Putin may have alternative motives, mainly having close ties with Assad, his editorial in the New York Times makes a very critical argument. The League of Nations, precursor to the current United Nations, failed to prevent World War II because it lacked the power to force member countries to comply with its decisions. The US strikes have not been approved by the UN Security Council nor are in self defense. Therefore, US military action in Syria would be in violation on international law. Should the rest of the member countries in the UN allow the US to execute these strikes without ramifications it would lead to further consequences. First, the situation would be the epitome of hypocrisy. Violating an international law to punish a country for breaking an international law simply does not make sense. Furthermore, if the US was allowed to conduct military action against Syria it would undermine the whole purpose of the United Nations. There would be a precedent that would be set allowing other major world powers to view their own interests and desires as greater than that of the UN, and giving them the power to totally ignore policies that limit their actions in any way. Future conflicts could be both started and magnified because of this dangerous precedent. In conclusion, I agree with this main argument of Putin's editorial, and stand by my original post urging the United States to avoid any military action in Syria.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2013/09/11/international-law-u-s-military-action-is-actually-prohibited-by-the-un-charter/
In response to Luke’s post:
I very strongly agree with you on the topic of this effort costing too much. You said that the overall cost of this military effort would cost between 4 and 6 trillion dollars. This is a crazy amount of money to be spent when there are other ways of going about handling the situation. You also brought up the subject of the Russian plan in the beginning of your post. This was one of my own supporting pieces in my blog post and I find it a major help in understanding not only is military attack not needed but other actions are already in progress to help ease the tension between countries. I think however that the thought of so many people dying already in Syria is a major factor in how the world should react to these devastating events. According to the Huffington Post there have been over 100,000 deaths in Syria since March of 2011. I think this would have been a very good piece of evidence that supports the decision to not go to war. This post also makes you realize that there has been so much more death in Syria than just this most recent attack alone. It forces the question why hasn’t something been done sooner. Personally I would have added this supporting detail into your paper as well as my own, since it is missing from my post as well. I understand how this most recent attack in Syria is making such an enormous impact worldwide, but I am also stunned by how there wasn’t as much reaction earlier.
Presse, Agence. "Syria Death Toll: More than 110,000 Dead In Conflict, NGO Says ." Huffington Post 01 9 2013, n. pag. Web. 22 Sep. 2013. .
In response to president Obama I can see where he is coming from yet we as a nation should not go into any conflict right now. Obama is making good points with the pin point airstrikes. Though we need to not go into military action first we need to try diplomatic relations before we try to use military force. Even now Russia has agreed to help us with diplomatic relations(1). America has to be the voice of diplomacy no a voice of aggression. Obama needs to see that sometimes the enemy can be reasoned with it just takes time. We are people who should lead the world into a place where military force should be used as a last measure or not at all.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/politics/us-syria/index.html
In response to president Obama I can see where he is coming from yet we as a nation should not go into any conflict right now. Obama is making good points with the pin point airstrikes. Though we need to not go into military action first we need to try diplomatic relations before we try to use military force. Even now Russia has agreed to help us with diplomatic relations(1). America has to be the voice of diplomacy no a voice of aggression. Obama needs to see that sometimes the enemy can be reasoned with it just takes time. We are people who should lead the world into a place where military force should be used as a last measure or not at all.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/politics/us-syria/index.html
In response to President Putin’s editorial. The main point of President Putin’s statement is that the United States taking actions against the Syrian government will create more instability in an already unstable region. I agree with this point. Putin further states that in the future America might eventually turn to brute force only in situations like this and only have an enemy-or-ally outlook on the rest of the world instead of looking at all the complexities the modern world has to offer. This would create an unhealthy amount of distrust between nations and eventually make the United States an only war-oriented nation. (1)While parts of his speech might be viewed as fair points, others see that he was avoiding topics such as Russia’s involvement in the conflict like the millions of dollars worth of weapons they have sent to the regime of Syrian President Assad and how with these weapons, over 100,000 innocent civilians’ blood is indirectly on Putin’s hands. (2) However, it is not looking likely that the Assad regime is going to agree to de escalate the violence that they have already started. An attack would lead to more spread out violence some experts speculate. (3) The events that have taken place so far have made the situation more complicated than ever and a might second Geneva Peace Conference might called over the very issue that has taken place in Syria. All sides of this conflict in Syria are looking for power and have done terrible things to get it. President Putin’s idea of not adding more violence to the mix is probably one of the better actions to take, but we should also not look away from the problems that are already at hand on the side of that Russia has taken.
(1) http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/putins-new-york-times-blunder/486234.html
(2) http://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/216355786/alastair-crooke-comments-on-syria
(3) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/syria-war-stalemate-assad-rebels
In response to Vladimir Putin's editorial:
I agree with a lot of what the Russian leader had to say. The US Governments quick and rushed proposed action to war would be going against everything the United Nations stands for. The UN was created to " promote and support international cooperation to achieve development for all, and assists governments in agenda-setting and decision-making on development issues at the global level." (1) If the USA were to put feet on the ground in Syria without UN approval, it would be going against their mission because many other powerful countries are against the impending Syrian war. Also, the Syrian war has a lot of grey area that would need to be cleared up. Putin referred to the fact that the rebels are not necessarily the right side of this issue. (2) Until Russia knows what the rebels mission is when they get to power, they are refusing to help the USA in the Syrian war.
http://www.un.org/esa/desa/mission.html
http://www.dw.de/us-russian-stance-on-syria-could-extend-conflict/a-17145503
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home