Due September 7, 2013

“Hunter Huss IB Readings”

August 31, 2013 Due September 7, 2013

If you haven’t posted on the first blog of the year, it is below this one so make sure you do that. This one isn’t due until Saturday, September 7.

On August 21, the Syrian government used chemical weapons against rebels and civilians it is fighting in a civil war. Previously, President Obama stated that if chemical weapons were used, there would be retaliation for violating international law. It is the use of chemical weapons on his own people that led to Sadaam Hussein’s arrest and execution. The link below has a brief background of the event of August 21 for those who haven’t kept up with the news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

And if you don’t know much about Syria, read this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_world_pop

This afternoon, Saturday, August 28, President Obama said that he would ask for congressional approval of a strike.

For this week’s blog post, I want you to read the following two articles and then answer the question: “Should the United States retaliate? Why or why not?”

To get full credit for this post, answer the question and CITE facts from BOTH of the following articles to support your argument. (NOTE: While the links above do not have be read and cited, they are great info to catch you up on what is going on. The links below are the articles required.)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general

Remember – READ both articles completely, then support your argument with them. You are also welcome to google and use other articles as well for extra credit.

82 comments
Posted under Uncategorized

Write a new comment 82 comments

Permalink # lamexicana96 said

Okay, I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet and to the point, but we all know that’s not going to happen. For all of you new people, I apologize (not really) for my long and thorough blog posts and may or may not change your life (just kidding….sort of).

I feel like this is a hard question to answer; on the one hand I believe that we have the responsibility as humans to protect one another, but on the other I feel like we have no right to eavesdrop on other countries and interfere as whenever we want. Personally, I feel we should protect each other because no one’s life is more valuable than another’s. With that said, the fact that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against the rebels and civilians, in my opinion, warrants US intervention. For others, either the decision is for the US to intervene because we are able to or the decision to for us to stay out because it is none of our freaking business what other countries do within their borders.

[Before I begin the blog-type stuff, I would just like to add that there are so many Republicans right now all up in arms about how Obama has no right to declare war on another country when, in fact, that is exactly what George W. Bush did after 9/11. These people seriously need to grow up and so do the people who voted for them.]

So, to answer the question “Should the US retaliate?”, my answer is: I have absolutely no freaking idea. My head says no and my heart says yes. I feel like President Obama is in the same boat; he wants to intervene and hopefully help the Syrians, but he needs the backing of US politicians and allies in order for him to do so. I feel like the best option right now is for the United States to retaliate. This is not about protecting American strength or sticking our noses in other another country’s business. This is about, as the first article stated (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story), standing up for the 1,429 who were killed as a result of the Syrian chemical attack. [Not to sound like a nerd or anything, but I am watching Face The Nation as I type and the focus is on the crisis in Syria.] This is about the fact that a GOVERNMENT is KILLING its people with CHEMICAL WEAPONS. President Obama (and this is from John Kerry who is on Face The Nation right now) wants to retaliate, but he feels like an approval from Congress would show that the US is acting “in concert” and would protect US credibility.

“Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move as one nation.” – President Obama

John Kerry stated (on Face The Nation) that President Obama has no intention of taking responsibility for the revolution in Syria. From what I read in the first article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story), is trying to send a message to the rest of the world. He said, “Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” I agree. I feel like, from what I read, that President Obama’s heart is guiding his urgency to retaliate. I mean, wouldn’t you if you had two young children? On the other hand, his head is telling him that he needs the approval from Congress, unlike what happened when President G. W. Bush decided to go to war after 9/11.

I feel like I keep getting off topic and I don’t mean to, this is just such a confusing decision to make. Do you follow your head or do you follow your heart?

Honestly, I feel like the United States SHOULD retaliate. The problem then would be to make sure that a bigger mess is avoided. In the second article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=general&src=me), Ryan C. Crocker makes the obvious statement that no one should “turn a blind eye” to the use of chemical weapons or the suffering of civilians. He also says that the problem is to find a way to respond that would put the Syrians, the region, and the US in a better position, rather than caught up in another messy conflict with an uncertain outcome.

I would also like to add that, while the British do not wish to take part in any type of military action against the Syrians, the French are happy to fight alongside America and are, in fact, pressing for military action in Syria. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/europe/in-turnaround-its-france-backing-arms-while-britain-sits-on-syria-sidelines.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fworld%2Fmiddleeast%2Findex.jsonp)

“I shall continue to do what I think is right whether anybody likes it or not.” – Harry S. Truman

“Do what is right, not what is easy.”

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Very thoughtful post. I agree that it’s a nearly impossible decision
  
  Reply
- Permalink # Nathaniel said
  
  Yeah, those Republicans need to stop learning from their mistakes! How dare they be so childish? They’re being almost child enough to insult someone that disagrees with them in an unrelated blog post!
  It’s small things like what you said that cause more tension between the parties that already simply start to agree with whatever the opposite party disagrees with(hey, why think? just disagree with someone because they dislike the way you…pretend to think) These meaningless political arguments that people go out of their way to make are what stop progression. And isn’t progress what you’re all about?
  It isn’t open-mindedness. It’s close-mindedness that wraps itself up in the guise of open-mindedness.
  Could you have made this blog post without voicing your unrelated opinion? Assuming the answer is yes(because it is,) then why force your trivial hate into it?
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    Who is this addressed to? Didn’t see any tea party posts
  - Permalink # Nathaniel said
    
    It is addressed to Meli, regarding her irrelevant bashing of Republicans.
    Don’t get me wrong. I think that Republicans have some ridiculous views as well, but going out of your way to bash someone’s views is wrong regardless of what their views are.
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    Ok cool, just reread
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    Not wholly irrelevant if she compares w’s actions to Barry’s. I commented on hers.
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Good point; but bush did worse. He acted on made up (maybe willfully made up) intelligence and this chemical act confirmed by United nations
  
  Reply
- Permalink # lamexicana96 said
  
  I do apologize for my comment about Republicans.
  
  Next time I shall keep my mouth shut so as not to offend people.
  
  (But, in my defense, the first sentence was true.)
  
  Reply
Permalink # candersonbaseball said

The same goes with me. Am trying to keep this short and sweet.
We can all say that what the Syria gov’t did was wrong.they broke the agreement between nations.Now for Obama’s plan, i think he should have the power (which he does) to react in his own way instead going to congressional approval of a strike.

I have been watching this on CNN and HLN for about 2 days now and i been hearing what other people have been saying.But this is about what i think of the situation.

President Obama’s plan i think is the best plan he has ever came up with (that’s my own opinion).There will be no troops on the ground, the U.s troops are not getting killed. its a win win in my eyes, but i just have one question?

The second article says that “…. Russia is Syria’s most important ally” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_world_pop. does that mean Russia is going to defend Syria? If we go to war with Syria does that mean Russia is going to jump in? (please respond to this comment below)

Another topic is how the Syria gov,t killed there own people. They used chemical weapons that “…..a class of chemical munitions that include sarin.”HTTP://WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM/WORLD/NATIONAL-SECURITY/NEARLY-1500-KILLED-IN-SYRIAN-CHEMICAL-WEAPONS-ATTACK-US-SAYS/2013/08/30/B2864662-1196-11E3-85B6-D27422650FD5_STORY.HTML. If you don’t know what sarin is, it attacks the nervous system. It stops the nerves in the muscles from switching off(breathing).

Back to my main point, the U.S.A should retaliate. I just hope it doesn’t turn into something bigger, as in Russia stepping in to help with its most important ally. i think we should still retaliate with this in mind. We cant let this get away, this involves immediate action.

Reply
Permalink # noblitt said

nice post.. I think it turning into a broader conflict is the danger. Russia doesn’t have the military to go head to head with the US, but they could provide weapons to Syria and maybe damage US ships or harm US soldiers.

Reply
Permalink # marykiser said

Since I was like late on the last one, I’m going to go ahead and get this one done so you don’t completely hate me Noblitt. (And so you can give me a 100 for the last one since I was late….?)
Okay, “Should the United States retaliate? Why or why not?” First of all, I had no idea what was going on with the whole Syria thing until I read the two articles to learn more about the subject and HONESTLY, I don’t understand why United States really has to get involved with other countries problems. I know there is some reasoning behind it, but still, let’s worry about our own before other countries, ya feel me?
Other than that, Should the United States retaliate? I don’t know. In the article http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story Obama states “Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” he said.’ I like how the United States is making a big deal of THEIR leader killing innocent children, but how many times has the United States bombed, attacked, etc. many innocent children during wars? That’s what I don’t understand, and I may be way off right now, but what it looks like to me is that we The United States are being a bit hypocritical about the situation. All were trying to do is look like the ‘best’ guy in the world and try to ‘help’ other countries.
You know, I could be completely off topic and way out of line about this blog post, but to answer your question, Noblitt, Should The US retaliate? Nah. Just leave it be.

Reply
Permalink # marykiser said

Since I was like late on the last one, I’m going to go ahead and get this one done so you don’t completely hate me Noblitt. (And so you can give me a 100 for the last one since I was late….?)
Okay, “Should the United States retaliate? Why or why not?” First of all, I had no idea what was going on with the whole Syria thing until I read the two articles to learn more about the subject and HONESTLY, I don’t understand why United States really has to get involved with other countries problems. I know there is some reasoning behind it, but still, let’s worry about our own before other countries, ya feel me?
Other than that, Should the United States retaliate? I don’t know. In the article http://WWW.CHICAGOTRIBUNE.COM/NEWS/CHI-SYRIA-OBAMA-20130831,0,5513950.STORY Obama states “Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” he said.’ I like how the United States is making a big deal of THEIR leader killing innocent children, but how many times has the United States bombed, attacked, etc. many innocent children during wars? That’s what I don’t understand, and I may be way off right now, but what it looks like to me is that we The United States are being a bit hypocritical about the situation. All were trying to do is look like the ‘best’ guy in the world and try to ‘help’ other countries.
You know, I could be completely off topic and way out of line about this blog post, but to answer your question, Noblitt, Should The US retaliate? Nah. Just leave it be.

Reply
Permalink # austinmp88 said

Usually I don’t agree with the United States getting into conflicts because it seems the majority of the time the conflict is occurring because a small group of people in power in our country can benefit from an attack. This is different, I don’t think we gain a great deal from attacking Syria’s government, but I think some retaliation could benefit those under Al Assad’s reign. Syria’s government broke international laws. “and U.N. inspectors had left Syria after gathering evidence of a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials say killed 1,429 people.”(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story) Crimes like this should go punished but I do wonder why we pick and choose certain instances to get involved. The selective nature of our government makes me skeptical that their aren’t more reasons for our involvement. On the surface though I have no issue with protecting people who can’t protect themselves. In the second article I found a quote that described what would be the best case scenario in my opinon if it’s possible. “Supporters of the president’s proposal contend that a limited punitive strike can be carried out without inflaming an already volatile situation.”(
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0) If this situation is not possible like people fear it may not be, than the best thing to do would be to hold back on an attack but stay ready in case things get worse and we are forced to attack. Many experts in the 2nd article say that an attack may not do much good for the people of Syria, so it may be best to wait on the retaliation but to be ready if things worsen or if chemical weapons continued to be used. On Sunday morning I woke up with ABC News on because the TV had been left from Georgia vs Clemson the night prior. On ABC news the panelists were arguing about the Syria Strike. One of the main arguments I remember was that the U.S. would look weak if they did not retaliate, I don’t agree with this argument because I don’t think attacking a non superpower makes us look stronger. If we intervene in Syria it should be too help the people of Syria not too make ourselves look stronger.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Very good post
  
  Reply
Permalink # kiapressley17 said

I do believe the U.S should retaliate although it my not entirely have something to do with us we should stick up for those who cant fight for them selves. Syria’s leader is ” Indiscriminate, inconceivable to his horror he has bad judgment he killed his own people and doesn’t deserve the horror or power of being there leader. The “Peaceful protester rose up to the dictatorship running of there country” that doesn’t mean that everything they were doing was right but i feel as though it was their right to stand up for what they believe in. So “Yes” U.s should step in.

Reply
Permalink # Aislinn Nantz said

I agree that Obama is doing the right thing by asking for our decision on this like (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story) is saying but I feel that WE as America tend to stick our noses in places it doesn’t belong. I think that we should retaliate but not so forcefully after all, it is their country not ours. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general) says that we are very ignorant about Syria and I’d have to say I agree. We are wanting to “help” the civilians of Syria, but do we Really? I think we just want to look like the big bad Nation we claim to be. I do agree with (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story) that something should be done about Syria hurting its civilians, but why are we the ones who have to do it? Why is America always the ones to step in? We’re not mother to the world, we have our own problems to worry about on our home land! We should focus on our state not everybody else! As a wise man once said “Your focus needs more focus.” meaning we should put more focus on America and fix our problems before we go and try to “fix” someone else.

Reply
Permalink # philipeh842 said

This is a tough decision to make and luckily I don’t have to make it. I don’t think the issue is if the United States should help when a country’s innocents are being killed. If that was all there was to it then it would definitely be something we should do. The issue is that it could start something bigger that could cause more suffering than the event that began it.
There is also the question of if the United States is really in a place to be making these decisions. “U.N. inspectors had left Syria after gathering evidence of a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials say killed 1,429 people.”http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story
America has committed many innocent killings, especially with drone strikes in the middle east. I do agree with the idea that if a country is in a position to help another nation that needs it, they should. However, the US does not typically help others unless there is something to be gained.
As said in the second article, America must find a way to somehow retaliate while not stirring up a large conflict and also not punishing more innocents. More direct violence is usually not a great response to violence, especially when you are trying to be the peacekeeper.

Reply
Permalink # projectmayhem1nas said

A big part of the question that I believe we have almost entirely ignored is that we don’t know if America’s intentions are to do well. We’d like to say that America wants to defend civilians against a government using weapons for which they have no defense. We’d like to believe that we’re the heroes and what we do must be right(we’re America, by God…sweet land of liberty.) We might look back and see how we protected Jews from Germany and think, “surely, America’s interests are moral and not political!”
But if this was true…if we “want to defend civilians against a government using weapons for which they have no defense,” why do we kill civilians?
According to the Pakistan Body Count research site, the United States has killed 2,179 civilians and about 270 of those were women and children. We killed them with drone strikes, which are arguably worse than chemical attacks.
Well, alright..then why does the United States want to strike Syria? And if we’re not in it to help civilians, then why did we help the Jews?
Firstly, the Jews were popular to save because of the popularity of Christianity in America. Most Christians believe that the Bible calls for America to protect Israel using force. (While I hold that the Bible doesn’t call for the use of force.) It was okay to kill people if we’re protecting God’s people, but even at that..we didn’t get involved until Japan made it necessary(or rather..we made Japan attack us to make it seem necessary.)
Why do we want to strike Syria?
The simple truth is that we want to display our power and allow people to believe that we are still the moral capital of the world. Oil might have something to do with it as well.

Okay fine! We aren’t going there for the right reason, but why not support it anyway? They will still be punished and that’s what we want! That’s what we need!
There are many problems that arise from this. 1) We have no idea if we will actually do anything to prevent further chemical attacks. According to Mr. Crocker in the NYT link, there would be reason to believe that chemical attacks would continue in outright defiance. 2) We could start another World War. Iran has threatened the U.S., saying that if the States do retaliate, Iran may cause a “wider war”, according to the Chicago Tribune link. 3) We may cause even more Anti-American feelings to arise throughout the world(including America.) This could lead to more unnecessary war.

What should we do then? As evidenced by the Iranian nuclear facilities that were shut down by the CIA(with the help of Israel,) we have the power to disarm countries ‘without’ violence. I’m not saying it will be easy..maybe not even as easy as mindlessly causing more death, but I think that if America ‘can’ disarm the government of their chemical weapons, we should.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Old testament =force (read book of daniel), new testament no. But, the drone death toll is a good point.
  
  Reply
Permalink # Jonathan Griffin said

It’s hard to say what side I’m on in this debate. I can see both points to each argument. The people who want to fire on Syria see it as a way to end the chemical warfare and send a message to other nations that were thinking of using it. The people don’t want to fire on Syria see it as escalating a war to a new front and causing even more deaths. I just don’t know which side to choose.

I’d like to bring into account Obama’s credibility. As stated on http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story, Obama’s credibility has been shot due to his not taking action before. Not to mention that he stated that if Syria used chemical warfare, we would fire on them (at least I think that was what he said, I’m not 100% sure… if anyone knows for sure, reply to this and correct me). I believe that a man should live up to one’s promises and principles, not just preach, or defend, them. Based on that, I think he should fire on Syria… but what happens when you deeply regret a promise because you learn that the promise you made would lead to death? What happens then?

Here is the big question though, do we stand by and do nothing like Obama asked the Congress on http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story? Do we? I also believe that a man needs to take action. As Bruce Wayne/Batman said “It’s not who I am, but what I do that defines me.”. I completely agree with Batman. What can we do? I’d like to be able to find a solution that would not cause people to die, or progress this war, but is there a way? I don’t know. According to http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general, we have to choose between a loss of credibility or a more expansive war. I for one would want a loss of credibility, just as long as it didn’t end anyone’s life. But the source also states that “there is no advantage”. Well, what I get from that is that no matter what the Congress chooses to do, there will be lives lost. I don’t want that… No one wants that! So, What do we do? I don’t know. I wish I did, but I don’t.

I don’t want anyone to not live up to their word and lose credibility. I don’t want any expansion of this war. I don’t want anyone’s life to be lost. I don’t know what to do… but I do know something. No matter what, we must act in some way. Life has been taken away too many times by people not taking action. So, whatever we do we must not treat it like a game, like most of the activists in Syria think we are.

Namaste Everyone. Live in Peace.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Not a correction but a clarification. Obama did previously “draw a line in the sand” about the Syrian regime and chemical weapons. Obama didn’t go back on that. What he is now saying is that democracy only works if the elected representatives of the people weigh in. Even bush got congressional approval for the wars he started. The question you ask, Caleb, is should the president take unilateral action or does he need the approval of the citizens?
  
  Reply
Permalink # hoffmanalexis said

Obama has a good idea. He is intellectually and emotionally inclined to take military action in Syria. But also Presidents hate launching military action if 4 out 5 Americans are against it. So therefore, his plan could back fire. In another article I read, Obama states ” It doesn’t matter what Congress says.” So he’s planning to do what he wants even when if Congress his request. If he went through with it then that would weaken him overall. The Republican House Speaker John Boehner opposed it because he thinks military action in Syria is “premature”. Obama claims it is in response to his redline threat.

Should the US retaliate? Hmmm, I think so. Obama is showing that the U.S. has no tolerance for any nations that use chemical weapons. Then again he is trying to protect innocent civilians from the chemical weapons. Years ago, chemical weapons were banned from use, which was agreed by all of the nations. Only France and the USA are willing to enforce the rule.

Then there are our reasons not to go to war over Syria. With Congress sending us to war, its making us trillion dollars poorer from the mindless previous wars. When there is more things we need to bring to our attention in the U.S.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Make sure you cite the articles
  
  Reply
Permalink # littlejohndomanetrio said

I feel like we have the responsibility to do the right thing. before the situation gets worst. even though its none of our business, being the most powerful country in the world, its our duty to help the deffensless, whether its right or wrong but its the moral thing to do. but at the same time no matter what the reason is we have know right to go into another country and punish them for what they are doing to their people. this has nothing to do with the united states. i think if we intervene we’ll just be in another war. its the same thing as when 2179 civilians were killed by our drones. it wasn’t right then and this isn’t right. its to hard to choose a side off of this topic.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Please cite the articles
  
  Reply
- Permalink # seth said
  
  If Obama decides to retaliate against Syria then just as how explained in the article, more Syrian civilians are going to die, but then the American soldiers are going to die as well. Its none of our business to be interfering with this problem. I do not think the US should get involved with this, the US should just stay our of it and let the Syrians do whatever they like. We have more important problems here in the US to worry about then worry about Syria.
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    Cite the articles. Read some of the other posts to see how
Permalink # courtneydanielle2014 said

I believe that if Obama gets the approval of the U.S. Congress and strikes against them, then he is kind of kicking himself in the butt. He sends domes to kill some people, but he kills innocent bi-standards also, just like Syria.

“What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story)

Obama is killing children. Maybe not in his plain sight, but he is killing innocent bi-standards that could be children, babies. ANYONE. He is just being stupid and kicking himself in the butt. Because he is basically saying it about himself.

Although I agree that Syria is doing a horrible thing by killing children in plain sight, Obama should think before he does that. He should think about his actions, look in the mirror.

You’re Welcome.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Please check your spelling and grammar next time
  
  Reply
Permalink # zacht27 said

Straight up I don’t think we should launch an attack on Syria. We have to remember that this is an >alleged< chemical attack. There is no certainty. Only “high confidence” based on evidence provided by intelligence analysts that is seemingly entirely circumstantial. While he Obama administration has released a detailed intelligence assessment regarding the allegations, the assessment fails to provide hard evidence to support it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html)
We should also remember that intelligence information has been wrong before, demonstrated by the incorrect allegation that nuclear missiles were spawning in Iraq.

We should also remember that this is not an attack on innocent civilians. Syria has been in a civil war for 2 and ½ years. Many rebels are affiliated with terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. Assad is not attacking his own people just because he can.
Russia’s Vladimir Putin has stated his belief that this is simply a provocation by the rebels to get other countries involved. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,4137903,full.story) While Russia is one of Syria’s greatest allies, the idea is not an impossible one, considering the fact that we got involved in Libya’s civil war without any benefit for the United States. The rebels might very well be trying to get sympathy from a country that has helped others with the same problem in recent past a.k.a. the United States.

Launching an attack on Syria may also lead to a huge multi-national war in the Middle East. Syria and Iran have threatened to attack Israel, one of our most important allies, if the United States launches an attack on Assad. Israel will retaliate, dragging in Lebanon and Hezbollah. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=me)

I don’t think we should launch a military strike against Syria that could result in a multi-national war simply because of an alleged chemical attack on a possible terrorist affiliated organization trying to take over the government.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Would you change your position if evidence was confirmed?
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # zacht27 said
    
    Not really since the rebels have also used chemical weapons and claim responsibility for what happened last month (http://www.infowars.com/video-syrian-rebel-admits-using-chemical-weapons/)
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    Yep
  - Permalink # zacht27 said
    
    Just found that today
  - Permalink # zacht27 said
    
    Not sure how credible that is though
    If not then I still don’t like the idea of getting into a huge multi-national war
    Also Syria is in a state of civil war so the rebels and Syria are basically treating each other as separate countries and the idea that the rebels are Syria’s own people kind of melts away
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    I think that is a big part of the problem. Over 100 rebel groups, including al-quida. We help them by striking. Not sure about that being good, either
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    Yeah, I worked for army Intel a long time ago. It’s hard to get unequivocal evidence and lots of actions have taken place based on flawed evidence. But, on the other hand, the capture of bin Laden was only 50/50 according to Intel. Should we not have done that until 100 percent sure?
Permalink # ♕Princess Maddie✨ (@GingerMaddie722) said

Like several people have already said, I’m not sure that there is a right or wrong way to go about this retaliation against Syria issue. In one sense, I say no, the U.S should not get involved because the chemical attacks were not a direct hit to our country. After all, it is a Syrian civil war, not a world war. However, on the other hand, these chemical attacks killed innocent children. Also, after reading all four articles, it is very clear that chemical attacks are illegal.

An important thing to remember, no one has complete control over who dies in a war. People are killed due to “friendly fire” all the time. Like stated in the article,
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general), “Within Syria, there is also the prospect of civilian casualties, either from errant American missiles or among people near the target sites.” If America got involved, more innocent people could be killed than they are now. If that happened, our country would have a huge target on it’s back, which could lead to major war conflict for our country in the future.

As a teenager and aspiring teacher, it bothers me that, according to the article, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html), “the use of outlawed toxins to kill nearly 1,500 civilians, including at least 426 children.” Not only have almost 1,500 people been killed, but the fact that hundreds of those being children is absolutely appalling. The toxins were outlawed, so no one should have them and be using them actively. However, I know that the way human nature is set up, when forbidden to use something, the desire to use it greatly intensifies. In this case, I would agree that the U.S. should step in, simply as an attempt to protect innocent civilians against the outlawed toxins.

Based on this article, it seems President Obama had the same views I did with regards to protecting the children. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story), “Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” he said” I do not feel that the Syrians who orchestrated the chemical attacks should go unpunished, but I question whether Americans should get involved in the war and be the ones to punish them.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Nicely cited and well thought
  
  Reply
Permalink # kiarasp said

Should the United States retaltae?
This question can go both ways, it honestly depends on what the countries stand point is. President Barack Obama makes a good point, how can we just stand by and watch a leader of a country kills thousands of civilians with chemical weapons, which upon agreement were not suppose to be used. President Obama is saying that the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad should pay the price for gasing those peoplae and that we should be the ones to do it, as stated in the article, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story
The strike agaains Syria is suppose to be for strategic purposes only. It is so that al-Assad does not think he can use chemical weapons and get away with it, but also so that others that think they will be able to use it won’t try. While reading the two articles I began to think. Why would the US get involved? Right now the US is split between two. Obamas supporters think we should go ahead with the strike. However, long term there would be no point in striking. The US will strike Syria, and Bashar al-Assad will get stronger. If at any point he feels like he is in danger, he will recieve help from his closes allies, Russia and Iran. You also have to think about those civilians in Syria. If the US strike, and al-Assad does in fact recieve help from his allies, what does that mean for them? It means he gets even more crucial, and not only that, but they began to plan attack on other places like Isreal. Understanding that President Obama’s wants to do this, so he does not “get away” with chemical weapons, it has no point. The fighting and violence does not stop, and it expands even more. There becomes more and more refugees and creates more dislike against America. Also, if our strike does not go as planned Bashar al-Assad might end up using more chemical weapons just to retaliate against our “strike”. The United States is trying to deliver a message to the Syrian President, but is scared because they do not want a repeat of of the Al Qaeda catastrophe. The Us is looking at loss of credibility and confilct. In the article http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general, it says that the US is preparing itself to inject in conflict that is no longer just about Syria, but regional which includes Iran, Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group against Qaeda affiliates. Which means if the US gets invloved we could possibly lose more than just time and money, but it will be hard to maintain political credibilty. Like I said at the beginning, it depends on the United States stand point, what really matters, and what would be the safest for the US.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Good summary but what do you support?
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # kiarasp said
    
    I personally think that President Obama should leave that situation alone. We have our own problems here that need to be dealt with. Although, it is a good idea to strike so that it does not happen again, is is not definite. Also, if we do strike there is a huge possibiltity that it will have a negative affect here in the US. He is the President of The United States of America and if it is not helping us there is no point.
Permalink # hopehayes said

I personally think that America shouldn’t be in this alone and taking lead. as Mr. Crocker said. “Because once you start down this road, it’s pretty hard to get off it and maintain political credibility.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general
the U.N. should step in and take lead of this situation they should also embargo against Syria and any country helping Syria so we wont have to take any physical attacks. but also if this was happening in America i would hope another country would step in and help us. the question should the united states retaliate is almost impossible to answer. I think what Syria is doing is just dumb because why would any one want to kill there own people. but do we even know everything that has happened in Syria today, because the government has documents that the public isn’t aloud to see. so if everyone could see the documents it could change everyone’s opinion. I’m not a political person but I think Obama should make a choice that wont hurt American’s because we cant help what another country wants to do to there people. its also crucial for us not to turn a “blind eye” because Syria’s dictator is killing thousands of children and no one stopping him.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  I agree, but the UN won’t act due to Russia being able to veto any UN action even if every other country agrees. Already, the Arab league has asked for a strike
  
  Reply
Permalink # meagybreann said

So, the question for this week is, “Should the United States retaliate? Why or why not?”
Due to how things went in with Afghanistan, I’d say America should just keep their noses out of the business. Yes, we try to provide to any help to any country when we can, but doesn’t this take a chance for us to start another war? This is between Syria and their country, not ours. America has other things they should be worrying about, than the civil war of another country.

This article stated: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_world_pop)

“The one political option, which the Obama administration has been pushing for, would be for the Assad regime and the rebels to strike a peace deal.” Why? If the two absolute dislike another, wouldn’t one would come up with a way to strike “unknowingly.” It wouldn’t be the first time with Assad. I say the whole peace deal would be useless and wouldn’t take effect in any kind of way. However, that is my opinion.
Then there is Obama thinking about striking Syria.. In the article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_world_pop) It is said ” Obama administration’s not-so-subtle signals that it wants to launch some cruise missiles at Syria, which would be punishment for what it says is Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians.” Like I said before, this can cause a bigger threat to the US. How do we know they won’t retaliate back towards us? Wouldn’t this just cause more “drama” with the US and Syria? Here I go repeating myself again. I think we, the United States, should stay out of it. If there is a possible way to help the people from harm, then go for it, but lets not pull ourselves into another war.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  I think that getting entangled in another war is a great risk.
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # meagybreann said
    
    I agree. All it would do is put as at risk, with the economy already starting to come out out of a deep hole, wouldn’t this drag us back down? Personally I think that it would be a totally bad idea. It’s just to make the US seem like the “Bigger Person.”
    
    What is the whole thing about the US and Jerusalem? If you know. I heard something about it on the news, but wasn’t 100% following..
Permalink # jhenninger78 said

I do believe that we should retaliate. Our government is already to involved to back out now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
In this article it says, Unknown to Syrian officials, U.S. spy agencies recorded each step in the alleged chemical attack, from the extensive preparations to the launching of rockets to the after-action assessments by Syrian officials. if we are doing this than we are already to far in to turn back now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_world_pop
In this article it says There are no viable options. The military options are all bad. Shipping arms to rebels, even if it helps them topple Assad, would ultimately empower jihadists and worsen rebel in-fighting, probably leading to lots of chaos and possibly a second civil war (the United States made this mistake during Afghanistan’s early 1990s civil war, which helped the Taliban take power in 1996).
America can do something and that is help. They say if we help it will only make things worse, but I think it will help more than it will hurt. So when you ask if we should strike, I say yes do it because it is right.

Reply
Permalink # suarez05j said

Supporters of Syrian opposition say that U.S should intervene using its military might to efficiently resolve bloody war, ending risk of chemical warfare.
I personally don’t get involved in giving my opinion in political issues. I remain neutral. I don’t support
Obama’s government nor Syria’s. I believe no war can resolve anything in any country. Obama wants to fight back Syria because of all the innocent lives these chemical weapons have killed. But by fighting back, he will only cause more suffering and damage to humanity.
In the article, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general, in paragraph 7, Mr. Crocker said, ” So he continues on in defiance. Maybe he even launches another chemical attack to put a stick in our eye and then what? Because once you start going down this road, its pretty hard to get off of it and maintain political credibility”
By fighting back, It would only worsen the situation. There is little economic benefit and high military costs.
In the article, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story, It says that, backing from congress is by no means assured, with many democrats and republicans uneasy about intervening in a distant civil war in which 100,000 people have been killed over the past 2 and a half years.” Obama wants to intervene and try to solve this bloody war. By creating another bloody war? This would just lead to more deaths and complications. I dont think United States should retaliate.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  It’s not Obama’s government ; it is yours also. Regardless of what you may want, political decisions do have an impact on you
  
  Reply
  - Permalink # suarez05j said
    
    I never said they didn’t have an impact on me. Surely, they do. I just remain neutral in political issues.
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    Hard to have any impact on the world you live in if you are neutral on everything
  - Permalink # suarez05j said
    
    Not neutral in everything, just political issues. Throughout the years, no government has been able to efficiently bring permanent peace to this world. All mankind has brought is suffering to humanity and war. I don’t get involved in politics.
  - Permalink # suarez05j said
    
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and beliefs, those are mine.
  - Permalink # noblitt said
    
    Lol not sure how that is applicable to this discussion
  - Permalink # suarez05j said
    
    I don’t see how its not.
  - Permalink # suarez05j said
    
    But alrighty, see you tomorow.
Permalink # @therealaaronrohlman said

I would like to begin by saying that it really sucks to be Obama right now. A decision like this can not be made easily knowing everything that is at stake. Either decision has positives and negatives to it, so whichever one Obama chooses he will have people criticizing him regardless.

I am glad to see the president communicating with congress and our allies about the situation before he made a really careless decision. But I do believe that Syria should be punished for what they did. We punished Hussein for what he did, why shouldn’t the Syrian leader be punished for his actions. One of Newtons laws says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, well if Obama and the United States government do nothing then we are defying physics and we don’t need that. Accordingly, why would you allow a person who murders hundreds of innocent people to get off for free. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story) The United States can not remain at a stand still on this action, they must act swiftly to punish the Syrian government for what they’ve done. If we do nothing the world will see the United States for not practicing what they preach, and can no longer trust the United States to protect them when they can not protect themselves.

On the other hand I understand why our government would not want to do anything. The American people want no more trouble in the Middle East and that’s sensible because we’ve been there for almost ten years. I also understand the dangers of doing this because it may cause even more political unrest in Syria. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0)

The cold hard truth is that we need to maintain our political credibility. Countries do not want to go war with the United States as I understand. So why should we be scared of these measly militants that would help Assad if we do follow through with our word and reprimand Syria. I don’t fully comprehend the conflict in Syria because I’ve been caught up in much more pressing matters so if I’m incorrect on any statements, Noblitt, feel free to hold your comments until Monday.

Reply
Permalink # animallover5544 said

I’m on the fence about this one, because yes the chemical threat is there but it is not the United States’ job to solve a civil war when we are still fighting other countries. Right now, Obama is gambling in a dangerous game because if he does go through with this then he will be seen as antagonist in this because of the lives that will be lost. On the other hand if he does not then the United States loses credibility and power in the other countries. I just think that he brought in Congress so if it fails then all the blame will not be put on him. Another thing about this is that if he does counter strike then other countries around Syria might suffer for it. “But a number of diplomats and other experts say it fails to adequately plan for a range of unintended consequences, from a surge in anti-Americanism that could bolster Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, to a wider regional conflict that could drag in other countries, including Israel and Turkey.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=1&amp😉 If it neighbors get pulled into the war then their allies will come to their aid, including the United States for Israel, then it will be a bigger conflict then it was originally. If this pattern was to continue on then it will be almost like World War I all over again. I also do not approve of Obama’s methods to get Congress to agree to the strike. “”Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” he said.” He is using the children as a way to change their minds but what about when the U.S. drones kill dozens of children for only a handful of the enemy. Now on the other hand, the threat of a chemical war that the United States will be a part of is also a concern, because as I have said previously if Israel gets involved in the war then as their allies the United States will help them, and the people are still fighting in the Middle East. We can not afford to go into another war while we are still fighting another war so close by. The United States may be a superpower, but the people can only take so much before they are fighting each other. Yes, the threat is great, but is it worth the risk? I do know, I can only wait and see.

Reply
Permalink # sydneymcd said

I think that the US should retaliate against al-Assad, but maybe not in a way that civilians have to be involved. I do not know what type of punishment this would be, I just have a little string of hope that there actually is an option like that.

The US is seen as an international police officer. This comes with positive and negative connotations. As a country, we are disliked because we get involved in other countries business, but if we don’t act, nations will hate us for not weaseling our way in and saving the day. Either way, people are going to hate us so why not go ahead and punish the guy who broke an international law? Of course I hate that this is the role our country plays in the world, but people must be punished for the things they do.

Obama has asked the question, “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story) This quote raises a very serious point. What worries me the most about the US’ plan to attack is that even more children and innocent civilians will have to suffer. As stated in the second link, “Within Syria, there is also the prospect of civilian casualties, either from errant American missiles or among people near the target sites. The Syrian government has put some military bases in populated areas, and thousands of political and other prisoners are held in security buildings.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=general&src=me)

My hope for the attack, as bad of a word choice as that is for this situation is this, “Even if the strikes are somewhat limited, the official asserted, they would discourage the Assad government from again using chemical weapons and that, in any case, the condition of Syrian forces would weaken over time.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/world/middleeast/us-official-predicts-war-of-attrition-among-syrian-fighters-after-strike.html) I would want them to deter the Assad government from thinking that they can get away with actions like this and not receive any type of punishment.

Reply
Permalink # mnhyleman said

As many others have said, there is no right answer to this question. If Obama would choose to take action against Syria, other countries could be involved. (As what I read from http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/chi-syria-obama-20130831/) Obama taking action won’t end the suffering and it might not even hurt or stop Assad either.

If I were to agree and say that Obama should take action it would for the reason he said “… What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” (Read from http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/chi-syria-obama-20130831/) (Also, as read from earlier comments America has never intentionally killed hundreds of children.)

But also let’s make clear, Obama is really only wanting to take action to punish Assad (and he should be punished!) but the one thing completely stopping me from picking a side is will other countries get involved to protect Syria? In the (http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/chi-syria-obama-20130831/) they talk about Russia and how they will protect Syria to protect their military alliances. Will this start a war? Probably… Which brings me to why Obama shouldn’t take action against Syria, because even if he did.. It wouldn’t stop the war that’s BEEN happening and it may start a war with America that could last years and could get our people killed.

I see more bad things to happen if Obama follows through with his plan rather than if he didn’t. So.. I agree with earlier comments that my head says no, but my heart says yes.

And I only cited the Chicago link because for me it was the most informational. Even though I did read the other links.

Reply
Permalink # mnhyleman said

As many others have said, there is no right or wrong answer to this question. If Obama would choose to take action against Syria, other countries could get involved. (As what I read from http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/chi-syria-obama-20130831/) Obama taking action won’t end the suffering, and it might not even hurt or stop Assad either.

If I were to agree and say that Obama should take action it would be for the reason he said “… What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children in plain sight and pay no price?” As from the (http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/chi-syria-obama-20130831/) and from earlier comments America has never intentionally killed hundreds of children!

But also let’s make clear that Obama really only wants to take action against Syria to punish Assad (and he should be punished!) But the one thing that is completely stopping me from picking a side is will the other countries get involved to protect Syria? From the http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/chi-syria-obama-20130831/ they talk about Russia and how they will protect Syria to protect their last military alliances. Will this start a war? Probably… Which brings me to why he shouldn’t really follow through in his plan against Syria, because if he did.. It wouldn’t stop the war that’s BEEN happening there and it may start a war with America that could last for years and kill our people.

Like the Western official said in the http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0 post, “I don’t seen any advantages..” I see worse things happening if Obama takes action rather than if did not. So, I agree with an earlier comment that my head says no, but my heart says yes.

Reply
Permalink # mnhyleman said

I realize I posted twice, the second post is the corrected form of the first. I added on in the second one! I’d like to delete the first haha!

Reply
Permalink # jaybyrd40 said

Personally, I think that the United States shouldn’t retaliate. I understand that Syria was wrong for firing chemical bombs but I don’t feel that the US should punish them for this. I feel like in showing our authority by going above the United Nations is just a way to boast that we are the powerhouse of the world and that our military is far more superior than anyone else’s. In doing this I feel that it could come back to hurt us by a nation or nations forming an attack on the US. I don’t feel like this is our problem to handle although it is a problem. I find that there is far too much more risk compared to reward in the fact of retaliating. For example, if we attack Syria as an act of punishment they could see this as an act of war and retaliate against us. It would be seen as an act of war in any other country if another country attacked it, so how is this any different? Also it would cost our country a lot of money and possibly lives, not to mention the amount of stress put on the nations back. I would be worried if we attacked another country because I would expect that country to retaliate and fire back possibly starting a war. One thing that I am confused about is the big difference in the use of chemical warfare. This only accounts for a small portion of the deaths in the Syrian civil war over a span of two and a half years (1,429 of 100,000 casualties). You can find this statistic in the first article- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,4137903,full.story
Again, this is a civil war in Syria that isn’t affecting the US and wouldn’t until we did something to cause a problem, even if we had a reasonable cause. Also if the US were to attack Syria we would be doing the same in killing innocent civilians which is the reason we are firing in the first place, which I find contradicting in itself. War is war at the end of the day and the same with killing, there is no way around it or changing it. I just feel that it is way too big of a risk to take compared to it not really doing any good if we do it. It wouldn’t stop the war, it would still kill many people, and it may not stop the use of chemical bombs, which could lead to the US being a target in return. In number eight of this article the writer discusses that it wouldn’t do much good if the US attacked Syria- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_world_pop
I read all four of the articles linked to the blog and some of the other students’ responses. I personally feel that the US shouldn’t attack unless totally necessary and at this time it isn’t necessary. I am worried but eager to see how this unfolds as it could be a crucial point in history to be made. I hope that the head of our nation is able to remain patient enough to make the right decision.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Good post. I’m think you pose a valid question about chemical weapons. If suppose the reasoning is that since they are banned by international law, then the international community, ie, the United nations, should enforce the law. However, the UN can’t act due to a Russian veto in the security council
  
  Reply
Permalink # sayrehopper said

Ok, so “should the US retaliate?” is obviously a hard question to answer. I find it hard to answer because I can see valid points for both sides. I feel that we should retaliate on behalf of the thousands that were killed, but I also feel that we should stay out of it.

Ryan Crocker stated, “Our biggest problem is ignorance; we’re pretty ignorant about Syria”. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general) I couldn’t agree more. Many Americans are forming their own opinions about everything that is going on with Syria and criticizing the decisions made by officials , when they probably don’t fully understand the situation. Also in that same article, a statement caught my attention: “Verifying information in Syria is extraordinarily hard, and another risk, however remote it may seem to American officials, is that it turns out that the Assad government was not responsible for the chemical attack. ” this made me wonder how sure the government is about the chemical attack by the Assad government if they are still trying to verify it. This makes me think that we shouldn’t retaliate.

I also don’t think we should intervene because it could mean trouble for the US, as well as our allies. “Iran’s and Syria’s defense ministers threatened on Friday to unleash attacks on Israel if Mr. Assad was in danger.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general) I don’t think we should put ourselves in danger.

Another reason I think that we should not retaliate is because if we do, what will happen to innocent citizens who are in the wrong place at the wrong time? “Within Syria, there is also the prospect of civilian casualties, either from errant American missiles or among people near the target sites.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=genera) if we are harming the people that we are intending to protect, then we aren’t really doing much good. I mean, it kind of takes away from the whole purpose, right?

On the other hand, however, I do feel the right to stand up for and do something about the thousands of people who were victims of the chemical attacks. We can’t just sit back and watch as a government is killing their own people, like that is not okay. Obama stated, “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story) Our government needs to consider the cost of doing nothing. We need to send the message to Syria, as well as other countries, that they can’t get away with something like this. If retaliating is the way to send this message, then so be it.

Our government doesn’t need to turn a blind eye to the situation, but we need to be smart about the way to go about handling it.

Reply
Permalink # catherinebynum said

Well, I don’t really know where to begin… This issue has several different sides. The fact that people are being killed gets your emotional side, and makes you want to jump in and save the day. The political side of the issue can take you either way. You can talk about America’s credibility to other nations, and you feel like it is necessary, but then you think about sacrificing more of our own men and women and you kind of feel like its not our business. I honestly don’t know what we should do.
“”Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” he said.”
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story)
If the U.S. doesn’t do anything at all, that makes us look bad. We lose credibility to other nations. Also, no matter where they are, or what trouble it would cause us, a human is a human, and how can we sit back and let a government kill their own people? That argument sounds good, but what if?… (I am not completely educated on this matter, so this next argument may be really stupid, but it was mentioned on the second website) Is there not a small chance that the government is not responsible? If we go and attack the government, and they were not responsible, how does that make us look? Also, if there is that chance, the Syrian government could act as though they didn’t do it, and get more people on their side.
“All that said, no one is suggesting that the United States or other countries should turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons or the suffering of civilians. The problem, Mr. Crocker said, is to figure out a response that leaves the Syrians, the region and the United States in a better position rather than entangled in another messy conflict with an uncertain outcome.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?pagewanted=2&ref=general&src=me)
I completely agree with this last statement. I don’t think that we need to ignore it, but we need to handle it in a way that leaves us, and Syria in a good position, not another long war. If we can handle this without causing an even bigger problem, I am all in.

Reply
Permalink # josh said

Now i think that what syria has done to it civilians is wrong. what kind of goverment would strike on there own civilians. well i can say not a stable one, but russia has done a few similar things as what syria has done, and we didnt get involved. was it because they had a stronger military force? I dont know why.

So my opion on “should. the US respond in military action?”. I dont think we sould use military action in response to the chemical attacks to there own civilians. now one reson why i dont think we sould take military action is that we havent looked at all the options like cut them off with trade.
But the main reason why i think that we should not take military force on this

Reply
Permalink # hkwoodie95 said

First off, I am not a violent person, and I don’t support violence. However, I do believe the US should retaliate in some form or another. “All that said, no one is suggesting that the United States or other countries should turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons or the suffering of civilians. The problem, Mr. Crocker said, is to figure out a response that leaves the Syrians, the region and the United States in a better position rather than entangled in another messy conflict with an uncertain outcome.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=general&src=me)
I agree with Barnard in this statement. The US needs to find a way to retaliate that does not involve weapons of mass destruction. Even if the government does use specified missiles to target Syria’s government officials, would that not cause a problem for us? If we bomb Syria’s government building’s and “accidently” kill Syrian officers, would that not make Syria mad at the US?
Second, why would you say you are going to do something, such as “if chemical weapons are used, there will be retaliation for violating international law”-President Obama, and then not follow through with it? “A Reuters reporter visited a group of fighters and activists sitting in a home in Aleppo city. They had not watched Obama’s speech, and when told of the president’s decision, they all agreed it meant there would be no U.S. strike.
“This is the same old hesitancy that the United States have tortured us with since the beginning of the revolution,” one said.” (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story?page=1)
By not following through on that statement, it makes the US look weak and uncertain. I understand Obama wanting to talk this through with congress. However, that should have happened before he made the statement from above. When we say we are going to do something we need to do it. Some Syrians believe that we will not strike. Is that the image we want?

Reply
Permalink # Dean Gamble said

Should the United Sates get involved in what is going on in Syria? I agree that is morally wrong for the Syrian government supposedly used chemical weapons on their own people. The government should be punished in some way if these attacks occurred. I don’t think that the United States should get involved. I think that the United States always feels obligated to be the world police. The US has no obligation to help the Syrian people. We are not allies with the Syrian people. We did help the Egyptian rebels when they tried to change their government recently. The United States did not help the rebels there why should we help the Syrian people because the Egyptians are our NATO allies. The Americans who agree that we should go to war only want America to go to war only because they feel sorry for the Syrians who may have died.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_allies_of_the_United_States
I agree with Zach this is an “alleged” attack we have no proof that the attacks even took place. The US Government believes that they have “high confidence” that the attacks took place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1th500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story_1.html
Also the attacks may have not attacked yet. The government is only to try to prevent what may happen since we know Syria has chemical weapons.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria
We all know that Syria by is not a national threat. Congress doesn’t consider them to be a national threat that’s why they are waiting till September 9th to make the decision whether to go to war with Syria or not. I think our Congressman know what they are doing since many of them are very well educated. If they don’t consider them to be a threat then why should I or anyone else for that matter.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story
Staying out of this would not only be beneficial to the US and would stop Al-Qaeda from taking over another government. Also the US is still recovering form the war in Iraq and this is not a good time to get involved in a war. The New York Times stated the rebels are associated with Al-Qaeda. They first thing the Rebels would is they would bomb us. If we helped the Rebels by bombing the Syrian Government, the Syrian president said he will send missiles to Israel and declare war on Lebanon, which would turn this small conflict into possibly a world war. So either way no matter what we do there will be terrible and deadly consequences.

Reply
Permalink # seth said

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

If Obama decides to retaliate against Syria then just as how explained in the article, more Syrian civilians are going to die, but then the American soldiers are going to die as well. Its none of our business to be interfering with this problem. I do not think the US should get involved with this, the US should just stay our of it and let the Syrians do whatever they like. We have more important problems here in the US to worry about then worry about Syria.

Reply
Permalink # Hawkins said

Alright, so this is an extremely difficult issue to make a definite decision on. For one thing, as a country we have plenty of issues and situations we need to address ourselves, but then again, how can we stand by and let what is and has been happening in Syria continue. I cannot imagine being Obama or Congress right now.

Like Obama said, “Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story) It is our duty as human beings to prevent such horrible things from happening to people, especially people that cannot protect themselves. However, the plan for the ‘attack’ has too many different possible outcomes for me to be saying, “Let’s do this thing!”

The New York Times article points out that, “A number of diplomats and other experts say it fails to adequately plan for a range of unintended consequences, from a surge in anti-Americanism that could bolster Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, to a wider regional conflict that could drag in other countries, including Israel and Turkey.” We cannot be certain of the consequences the actions that we are taking will produce. Therefore, I’m sitting the fence on the question “Should the United States retaliate?” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0)

The biggest issue here is uncertainty about what is going to happen. We just do not know enough to execute this plan, but I still do not think we can just stand by. I am most certainly playing my own devil’s advocate on this issue, which is just making me annoyed, so I’m going to stop rambling and typing now. Indecision at its finest. Boom.

Reply
Permalink # wellmanjosh said

I want to say that what Syria is doing to there people is wrong. I can also see why America wants to take military force upon the Syrian government. but what i don’t understand is that why was the us not taking force on Russia when they where harming there civilians? and suddenly when Syria does something similar the US wants to take action.

But i believe that America should not take upon action to put military strikes on Syria. now the reason why we should not put forth these actions is because it could lead to many other countries retaliating against us and allies, like (Russia, Iran, and china) are the ones that i am mostly concerned about. what i have come to believe that china could release the debt on us that we owe them. and it could send are country into a bad rescission.

Reply
Permalink # Morgan Fender said

Well, I’m glad i remembered to do this blog post when i did! Better late than never, right?

It’s absolutely terrible what happened in Syria, but I don’t think it’s the US’s place to intervene. We have many more problems here in our country that Obama needs to be worrying about, instead of helping Syria fight their own battles.

“I don’t see any advantage,” said a Western official who closely observes Syria.

There wouldn’t be an advantage to the US if we went to Syria and helped them, if anything, it would just make our country a bigger target! I have heard and read from different places that the rebels in Syria are made up of people that were, and still are, involved with Al Qaeda. If we went to help these people, that would be just like arming the very people who caused the biggest terrorist attack in the history of our country!

So, to answer the question: “Should the United States retaliate? Why or why not?” The very definition of the word retaliate is to get back at someone for something they have already done to you, or in other words, revenge. Syria hasn’t done anything to the US that is worth getting involved in their problems, and risking our soldiers lives.

Reply
- Permalink # Morgan Fender said
  
  since i forgot to do my citations the first time, here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0
  
  Reply
Permalink # meagybreann said

I just realized that I didn’t cite the right articles to get full credit. So here we go…

The question to be answered is, “Should the United States retaliate? Why or why not?” I say no, no, and no. This will just pull our Nation into a deep hole. Possibly starting a new war and just sticking our noses in other countries business. Like they say “curiosity killed the cat.” Also, I think the government should be worrying about other things than the chemical weapons of Syria. This is a civil war between Syria and it’s country. Not Syria and the United States.

In the article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story) Obama says, “Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move as one nation.” This isn’t showing a “Nation,” it is showing that the US wants to be considered the “Big Guy.”
Later in the same article it was stated, ” Senior administration officials who briefed reporters after Obama spoke said they believed Congress will vote in favor of a U.S. military strike because of the threat chemical weapons pose to the security of U.S. ally Israel and other friends in the region.” Yes, I understand the United States is always an aid for help, but this is just putting us in risk. Couldn’t this send us down the same road as how Afghanistan went?

In the other article, (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0) It says, ” “I don’t see any advantage,” said a Western official who closely observes Syria” This is because there are really no possible advantages of attacking Syria. We all know how Assad can turn his back real quick and unknowingly. This is just starting a bigger threat and conflict between the United States and the Middle East. The war with Afghanistan is not really over, although they say it is. With this, how do we know Syria or allies of Syria won’t retaliate back towards us?

The over all answer is no, I don’t think the United States should retaliate. Why? This can cause a big threat to our country and get us involved with something that we will regret later on. If there are other ways to solve peace between Syria, or aid the people for help, then go for it. However, lets not put us, the United States, into something that can cause us trouble.

Reply
Permalink # thatgirldeven said

America, in my opinion, needs to deal with it’s own problems first before it tries to interfere with other countries and their problems. Obama needs to focus on things that will boost America up and not put us into even more trouble.
“President Barack Obama stepped back from the brink on Saturday and delayed an imminent military strike against Syria to seek approval from the U.S. Congress in a gamble that will test his ability to project American strength abroad and deploy his own power at home.”
http://WWW.CHICAGOTRIBUNE.COM/NEWS/CHI-SYRIA-OBAMA-20130831,0,5513950.STORY
With this, we see that President Obama is being wishy washy about what he will say and what he will do as a leader of our nation. He’s making up look weak in my opinion. I feel Obama should mind his own business and do what he needs to do for OUR sake, not Syria’s.

http://WWW.NYTIMES.COM/2013/08/31/WORLD/MIDDLEEAST/EXPERTS-FEAR-US-PLAN-TO-STRIKE-SYRIA-OVERLOOKS-RISKS.HTML?SRC=ME&REF=GENERAL

We see here that many do not see any type of benefit coming to the US from this conflict so really, why bother? Why invade their country and get involved in their affairs if it could possibly put us at risk?

So to answer your question, let’s just stay out of Syria and figure out what can make AMERICA a better place. There’s plenty to be fixed and we don’t need even more on our plate than what we can handle.

Reply
Permalink # mcol987 said

Okay here I am right on time as always (:

“Should the US retaliate?” This is a really hard question. There are many factors and isn’t a decision that can be made in complete confidence that you did the right thing.

On one hand I personally feel that we should stay out of it because it isn’t our business. We also have absolutely no clue how Syria will react like the article stated. “In outlining its plans, the Obama administration has left many questions unanswered” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0) I feel like there are way to many unknowns to go through with this plan

but

at the same time what happens to Americas credibility? “Obama, whose credibility has been called into question for not punishing the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for earlier poison gas attacks, warned lawmakers they must consider the cost of doing nothing in Syria.” (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-syria-obama-20130831,0,5513950.story) It seems like the whole world wants us to do something, but they don’t want to back us up. but “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”
(http://WWW.CHICAGOTRIBUNE.COM/NEWS/CHI-SYRIA-OBAMA-20130831,0,5513950.STORY)

Honestly I feel that this a very weighted descion and there will be good and bad things that come with both. I’m glad that I’m not Obama or Congress, because I would be losing sleep over this. If I ultimately had to decide I would choose No. I feel that the risks are too great. I would feel a lot better if we had better support and wouldn’t be punishing Syria alone.

Reply
Permalink # joél said

I personally think that we shouldn’t be involved in the situation, that was not what what the people in the military had signed up for. It is unfair to fight the battle.

Reply
- Permalink # noblitt said
  
  Not cited and late. Please follow directions for credit
  
  Reply
Permalink # erinthebabe said

Should the US retaliate against Syria? In my opinion I don’t think the we should retaliate against Syria. “After initially calling on United Nations inspectors to investigate the attack, the Obama administration switched course and declared that the U.N. team would not learn more than what U.S. intelligence agencies had already uncovered.” This section is from the second article. I don’t really see any other nations really becoming involved into this situation in Syria. Let’s say the US government decides to use poison gas on us, do you really think anyone would actually try to help us? I don’t, so why should we help this country? When America becomes involved in a conflict with another country we usually help and then decide to stay there and basically take over, and it pisses the country off in the long run. I like the part in the first article where there is a debate whether or not the document should be released because they are afraid of being embarrassed like they were during the Iraq experience. I mean sure it would be nice to help Syria just to be nice, but we are severely in debt and we really don’t need to be spending anymore money than we have too.

Reply