What should the United States do about the crisis in Syria?
Be as specific as possible. Also be sure to discuss any possible drawbacks of the plan you propose.
1 - 2 paragraphs (a paragraph is AT LEAST 5 complete sentences)
DUE: Wednesday, 9/12
INCLUDE YOUR BLOG #!!!! (ex: B2-9)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should not help by sending in troops. The only thing I think that we should do is send supplies. The problem about sending in troops is that it can end the same way it did back when we sent troops to Iraq and then that had leaded us to war ourselves. It just ended last year and I don’t think that the United States is looking for a new war to start. If in Syria they start to use bombs and gasses on thier own people, then should we consider about sending troops in.
ReplyDeleteI believe strongly that the United states should intervene in the rising conflict between Bashar Assad and the Syrian people. The main question behind this argument is how many civilians must die before they can be aided by outside forces? I am aware that tensions between the US and Russia and China might rise if we decide to get involved, but it is our duty as an able country to help others in need. If we do not go as extreme as sending troops into Syria, we should at least arm the civilians with better weaponry to help their chance with the civil war. Another argument would be that we do not have the money needed to aid in a war, but I, as well as many others, am a firm believer that wars actually stimulate the economy by providing jobs and aiding in currency circulation. This is why I believe that the United States should intervene and aid the civilians throughout their war with Bashar Assad.
ReplyDelete2A-8
#29
ReplyDeleteThe United States needs to take action to assist the rebels in Syria. Their situation is more dire than Libya, accumulating 7,000 deaths. NATO intervened before this many deaths were accumulated in Libya. However Russia and China refuse to allow the United Nations to send some form of aid or military action to the rebels. It is necessary that the United States intervenes with the conflict in a way to assist the rebels, being that they only have small arms while the government has an army, tanks, and military planes.
We can intervene by creating safe zones so that civilians are not harmed by the conflict. The United States can put military personnel to guard these safe zones. In addition the U.S. can create no fly zones and enforce this with anti-air weaponry. In addition no tank zones can be created and enforced. If the rebels need further assistance the U.S. can supply the rebels with intel about the enemy. If military intervention is necessary the U.S, can bomb military barracks and vehicle manufactories that belong to the government.
#29
A4-1
ReplyDeleteDue to the recent upsets and outbreaks occurring in Syria, America along with the rest of the world are confronted with the important questions of whether or not to help and how. Personally I believe that the United States should become involved but in a very gentile and refined manor. America should refrain from attacking both the Syrian Government and Nation full on for it would only result in a larger upset and possibly an even bigger outbreak. America should rather become involved through providing assistance and knowledge in hopes such actions will result in helping Syria rebuild their nation, government, and religion along with allow the Syrian nation to exceed the expectations of the world and once again become the largest and most powerful Empire. Along with supporting Syria I believe America should also attempt to persuade other nations into helping their troubled “neighbor”. Countries such as Turkey, China, and Russia in which all have strong Governments, and Armies would be a perfect candidate for providing Syria with the extra help and protection needed along with provide and extra on looking eye over seeing Syria’s process while America is not apparent within the process insuring that another outbreak would not occur. There are many opportunities and factors that could be put into action in hopes to help Syria, but there is of course the possibility that such actions will only result in a far worse uproar.
There is quite a large and overpowering possibility that such actions will only result in disaster of mass proportions. The Syrian nation could possible revolt against Americas help causing hundreds of further deaths of both Syrian and American troops and helpless citizens. Along with the factor of death there is a possibility that such whiplash from Syria could cause the current Syrian issues to worsen and result in the ongoing revolts and battles to inch closer to the brink of war. Other undeniable factors that could lead to war rather than resolution are the possibilities of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare being introduced into the rebels’ hands. If America isn’t careful and in control of their weaponry outsourcing there is an extremely large possibility that we could be providing Syria with the implements of our own demise; an incident all to reminiscent of what had happened in Afghanistan with Osama Bin Laden years ago in which resulted in 9-11 and a war all too real today. Clearly there are far too many factors and possibilities that could occur in which would both jeopardize America’s safety along with bring the world to the brink of its 3rd world war. It’s a slippery slope; how should America approach it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteB4-28
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the United States should help Syria, but without sending in our military. We don’t need to lose more American soldiers for a battle that has nothing to do with America. Even if our military does step in, it may cause a war. We are able to help them by simply shipping supplies over to Syria. We can ship weapons, food, clothing, and water. If we speak out and donate, we wont have to use our guns and swords to help Syria.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete4B # 26
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should not get involved with Syria’s conflicts. First, if the United States were to help the rebels take Syria, which could lead to major problems with Iran, China, and Russia. That could possibly lead to a World War or the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This could also stir up problems with other countries in. the Middle East.
As many people say, history repeats itself. The United States had not been successful in Lebanon in 1982, Iraq in 2000, and possibly a failure in Syria. The United States has fought twice already in two different countries and has been unsuccessful. In addition, if we were to help the rebels, the rebels could elect a Muslim extremist who is against America. The United States has many things to worry about if they decide to invade Syria. The United States has threatened Syria and tried to negotiate with them, and so far nothing has worked, so in my opinion the next best idea is to do nothing.
4A #6
ReplyDeleteI think that the U.S should not get involved with Syria's conflict. Not even a little bit. We should leave it alone because it is not our battle to fight. Every time something sparks up in the middle east we have to be the first ones to barge in and start "saving" lives. We have our own lives to worry about. The countless numbers of soldiers that die every day die in vain because at the end we might win the freedom but did it really come with the price it should have came with. That is why I think we should not help Syria with its conflict.
2B-#5
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S. should engage in the fighting in Syria. The more we sit back and do nothing the more death and violence will occur. Because the U.S. has the power to decrease the fighting, they should take part in the Syrian combat. There have been other countries that have requested us to do something, but we have ignored their requests.
This does not mean the U.S. should do anything that would put them in any danger such as risk the lives of their troops or go to war. They can simply use propaganda as a defense or set up safe zones or corridors. No matter what they decide to do, they should do something to at least attempt to put a stop to the violence.
4B #23
ReplyDeleteI think that United States should help Syria. This is because innocent people are dying trying to gain their rights and freedom. We could send in arms, intelligence, or money to help the rebels in any way possible. We could also establish safe zones to keep the refugees from danger. Lastly sending military forces but not until we need to, only as the last resort. But if we help there is also a setback, by helping we could become enemies with China or Russia, and get into another big war. With this kind of situation it’s a lose, lose situation because either way we go to solve a new problem comes too.
B4-37
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should stay out of the conflict with Syria because the U.S. shouldn't risk the allies they have made with Russia and China. The United States have worked so hard to make this country one that everyone wants to be allies with, so they really shouldn't risk that over Syria. Also, Syria is friends with Iran, which happens to be our enemy. So by giving weapons to Syria, that's basically giving weapons to our enemies. We also do no the complete background on all these people. And by helping the Rebels defeat the president, it would be an election where no one would know who they are electing into office. This could we very dangerous to the people on Syria. I do think we should at least give some medical aid to the people of Syria, like the civilians. But I 100% disagree with giving military, or armed weapons to our only enemy's friend.
B4-30
ReplyDeleteI believe that we should not take military action in Syria but we can try other options. We should not do anything drastic without at least mentioning it to other countries. This way we would at least know what their reactions would be on the plan. We could try to arm the rebels so that the conflict will end sooner and we can avoid more deaths. Another option we could try is to send food and other supplies to the safe zones. This will not offend other countries because it will not be a big step. But at least we can say that we helped the rebels and if they get defeated they will not think we abandoned them. Or, if they come to power we can be their allies because they will feel we have helped them.
As the war in Syria worsens, the US is faced with the decision of whether or not to interfere. Each idea has its drawbacks, therefore putting us in a tough situation. In my opinion, we should interfere. I think the crucial thing that we need to do IF we decide to is save the innocent lives being lost. This is because we are once again becoming bystanders by not stepping up to save innocent lives when having the chance to. This is a huge problem—a specific reason isn’t even needed considering what happened with the Holocaust and the genocide(s) in Africa. However, a drawback of this idea is the possibility of any refugee camps or victim safe zones being targets of bombs and attacks. But, of course, it can be prevented with bomb-drills and etc... as long as the people are kept safe.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to saving lives, I feel we should negotiate with China and Russia, in other words, practice diplomacy. This is because going against them would be bad considering we owe debt to China, and directly sending troops would cost a lot of money. However, if we negotiate with China and Russia, two powerful countries, we would be able to combine forces. A drawback of this would be that it would take a long time and with elections going on, it would be hard to find time. Last, causing financial pressure would in my opinion be smart as well because Syria is already extremely low on supplies, and by causing financial pressure, it would eventually bring them to desperation.
In short, I strongly believe that we SHOULD do something about Syria’s civil war because by not, we are becoming a bystander and standing here while we can save innocent lives. It would also make this easier if diplomacy and financial pressure were used. Syria’s war is serious, and even though there are drawbacks, I feel this is the correct thing to do.
#38: The crisis going on in Syria is a very serious one. To the extent where other countries are getting involved. To help the situation in Syria, I think the United States should provide medical and possibly military aid. Most definitely medical aid, because there should not be people laying on the streets being left to die, especially if they are innocent. Military aid is iffy, because sometimes you're not sure whether you're handing a gun to a citizen to protect themselves and their family, or if you're handing one to a terrorist who might do more damage than what is already done. I believe to become involved is better than anything at all.
ReplyDelete4A-14
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should definately get involved with Syrian rebels. First, we should ask them if they want additional troops to aid them on the ground. It would help solve the problems and end the war because the American Military is strong and can finish the war quickly. The downside to this would be that the Syrians and their allies could wage war on America. Also, the rebels could atack us once they are in power. Although there are dangers for America either way, getting involved is the best decision.
A2-(5)
ReplyDeleteIt's very hard to pick a side because every decision that is made has it's pros and cons. If we decide to help we don't know what will happen and we don't want to get hit in the head at the end, but if we don't help tons of people are going to suffer and die. We are stuck in the middle, but i think we shouldn't help them with military nore knowledge. If anything, i think we should help them with food, a bit of money, clothes, and other types of donations. If we give them weapons we won't guarantee our future and we won't know what can happen; they can easily turn on us and start a war.
We have already lost a lot of American soldiers fighting for our country. we might not care because we don't know how it feels to loose a family member like that, so we should think of the soldier's life and their family. This would be the best way to get involved but not too involved, and this won't harm us in the future. This isn't a joke that we can just play with. This is very serious and we have to think this through very carefully.
2B-2
ReplyDeleteEver since we entered WWI and left our age of isolationism, dealing with foreign countries, especially as they fight tooth and nail to get a taste of freedom, we are left almost as an impasse as each one comes with new problems and challenges. Do we run in guns a blazing jingoistically, tactically offer subtle but valuable support, or diplomatically attempt to diffuse the situation? Unfortunately, we are faced with this conundrum once again and the battle ground this time is Syria. But this time the games stepped up, with powerful chemical-and-nuclear-weapon-toting allies like Russia German and Iran, usurping wont be coming along very easily this time. Syria is facing a corrupt leader who is depriving them of basic rights, something we tend to not be all for, and groups of rebels are putting up fierce and determined opposition at every opportunity. With this unfortunate occurrence being the next in line for the Arab Spring, we must ask ourselves the age old question of a civilization with too much power haplessly watching those weaker struggle: what should we do?
The moral quandary is seemingly boiled down into two simple options: aid or ignore Syria's rebels(we could also bomb them to kingdom-come or join the tyrants, but it seems a bit out of character) but I don't see it as that simple, as nothing in life is black and white. I propose we assist in every way but a direct good old-fashioned tanks and mortars assistance. I believe we should supply the rebels with troops, either sniping or disguised as rebels(i.e. no armor and camouflage, more basic weaponry)and supply them with the technology they couldn't hope to get their hands on(unmanned UAV drones, better guns, etc.) while at the same time diplomatically trying to get al-Assad to step down and China Russia and Iran to stop supporting them, play both options, so to speak. The argument though is most obviously that equipment and troops are nonetheless equipment and troops no matter what they're wearing and whose hands their in and their loss and casualties will still effect us, which will be a major problem leaving a war, but to this I respond the only way we can help without coming off as being a serious threat to Russia China and Iran(two of which are world powers) and without using a serious amount of soldiers and equipment. In addition, it will give us less of a "we will single-handedly hold your hand through your revolution" and more of us as tactical assistance. This will also help us continue with either side(fighting tactically or diplomacy) if the other attempt fails, effectively giving us a backup plan. We should also attempt to supply them with food, medicine, etc anything to make it easier on them. Overall, I feel we should assist the rebels, but not hold their collective hand as if it was baby's first revolution.
Im sorry Im 2B-21, not 2, my bad
Delete*Russia China and Iran, not Germany, my bad.
DeleteB4-I'm sorry I don’t my number [(Claire) Bear Comes]
ReplyDeleteThe United States should “help clean up Syria’s mess”, but not alone. No definitely good outcome will come from any solution, but the US does not know until they will try something. The US should not just send troops or give the questionable rebels weapons because they could be terrorists. Also, both of those “solutions” cost a lot of money. Instead the US should get other governments to help pressure and isolate Syria’s government. China, Russia, and Israel will go after us unless we figure out how to get them on board because it is a mutual effort. It cannot be just one government against another, like just the US, or just Russia. With team effort we can end this crisis and “clean the mess”.
4A #12
ReplyDeleteI believe that not only should the United States not get involved in Syria, but that we also have no right to interfere with the events currently occurring in Syria. Whether it is known to the American public or not, it is certainly known to the world that the United States of America has a tendency to police the rest of the world and regularly interfere, meddle, and trifle with affairs that do not pertain to us. This often (in a very comical fashion) leads to us creating our own worst enemies. For example, the CIA funded Osama Bin Laden in the 1970's to expel Soviet invaders from Afghanistan. However we all obviously now know how this beautiful master plan turned out for us in the long run. In addition to that, here is a VERY recent example of how the CIA has managed to further demonize us in the eyes of the world: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/human-rights-watch/us-torture-and-rendition_b_1861389.html . That link links to an article release by the Huffington Post which details new found evidence that the Bush administration tortured and delivered opponents of Muammar Gaddafi to Muammar Gaddafi. So yes, we had a large hand in creating the madman we ended up having to take down in the recent Libyan revolution. There a numerous more blunders such as this throughout our morally-questionable existence as a country. The point I'm attempting to drive home is this: We created Osama Bin Laden and Gaddafi from sticking our noses where it had no business being stuck, what mentally unstable sociopath will we be responsible for creating, and EVENTUALLY, destroying if we decide to interfere in Syria? And do we really want to have more blood on our hands because let's face it, the blood of everyone Gaddafi hurt is on our hands because we as tax payers funded the CIA who ended up helping keep Gaddafi in power.
Often times the (most likely) uninformed American public is lead to believe such missions are simply some form of rescue mission or our country trying to build up good karma, however the United States always has an agenda. We were fighting communism in Afghanistan, not to help protect a people's sovereign rights, but to weaken our enemies. We helped keep a mad man in Libya stay in power not for any reason but to gain some sort of influence over Libya. We then aided the country in its revolution in a last ditch attempt to cover our tracks. Were we to get involved in Syria through military force, we'd make enemies, we'd commit numerous human rights atrocities before the battle ended, and we'd further lessen ourselves in the eyes of the world.
In addition to all this, China and Russia both have personal reasons for wanting Bashar Al Asad to stay in power. They vetoed UN action against Syria and we must respect their decisions. So with that option off the table, many would want us to get involved "under the table". Essentially, a clandestine military force. This will only lead to a Russian/Chinese clandestine counter military force. Slowly this petty squabble would escalate from proxy wars, to strained political relations, to a second cold war, to threats of military force, to war. War with two major world powers who both posses nuclear weapons does not seem like a very smart choice. At that point, the safety of the entire global population would be compromised.
Inaction would have its repercussions such as the deaths of Syrians who are involved in the conflict and more long term damage as the revolution rages on. However, Asad's forces are dwindling and he will surely lose power EVENTUALLY. Right now, eventually has to be good enough because any form of direct involvement from the United States will lead to the entire world (including us) losing.
With all of these things happening in Syria, I think the United States should get involved. They're are people over there dying and if we can help stop it, why not? Also, the rebels have clearly stated "we want American Intervention." This doesn't mean we have to have boots on the ground. If we learn that the rebels have good intentions, we can supply them weapons and other things to help them. We helped in Libya so why wouldn't help Syria? I'd rather be known for helping countries than sitting and watching them fall.
ReplyDelete- A4-4
We should get involved in Syria. I'm not talking sending troops in there, but we could help out in other ways. We can supply the rebels by either giving them weapons or just supporting them financially. I think we have an obligation to help them because the U.S. has a reputation for getting involved in foreign conflict. But in an effort to prevent the mistakes we've made in Iraq and in Lebanon, we should refrain from sending troops. We want to do something so no one else in the middle east turns their backs on us. We already have Al Qaeda after us, so do we really want to anger Iran too? Plus, Russia and China are against sending troops there, and it would be in our best interest to keep those relationships intact. Considering all this, I think arming the rebels is the best bet. The only possible holes in this proposal is if the new leader in Syria is either a terrorist or turns out to be worse than Al-Assad. Other than that, this seems to be our best option.
ReplyDelete2B-12
ReplyDeleteWith all of the violence that is happening right now in Syria, I feel that the United States should take action and help them out. Although I believe that the United States should take action, I don't think we should do anything that would put our troops in danger of losing their lives. So I strongly disagree that we should send in our military to help our enemy. Also, since we are in debt with China sending money wouldn't be a good idea. Instead we should create safe zones for the civilians in Syria. Even though this would be a target for attack, it can be stopped if there are drills to escape the area. The only step back about getting involved in the war is that China and Russia could become enemies with the United States. If this happened, then it could start a whole new big war. All in all, I believe that the United States should take action and get involved with the war, but not send in any troops and risk the lives of our own military.
America has a huge and important effect on different countries around the world. Whether they are big and small doesn't matter, however america is usually the country that reaches out to help others. Currently in Syria, war is ragging on between the government and its inhabitants. Syria is calling America to help them win the war in any way possible. On the contrary, America doesn't think the same.
ReplyDeleteI think America should at least attempt to help out Syria. They shouldn't directly go ahead and deploy troops to help out Syria because that would send a negative message to China and Russia saying that their decision doesn't matter. They should try to help out by sending weapons or food to help the Syrian rebels indirectly. Also, America could build a base that would protect Syrians in Turkey which would decrease the killing of Syrians. To conclude, even though America doesn't really think they should help I think they should do something about it.
2B- 13
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the U.S must be extremely careful while dealing with Syria. Since we probably do not want Russia and China against us, perhaps we should secretly provide to the Syrian rebels. While it is rather sneaky, if we did this, we would not openly be going against Russia and China. If America does not step in and help, I think the rebels with eventually have to give up. Personally, I do not believe we should send troops over there though. Unnecessary lives can be lost if we do deploy soldiers over there. In addition, the rebels may even want to win the war with their own people, but just need a little bit of help. We should send them food and let them know they have our support if they are in dire need of it, but not interfere to much, because in the end its their war and their country.
The United States has no need to enter Syrian soil. With conflict rising in the country, the U.S. has no reason to get involved with another war. Most of us know what occured in egypt, and most importantly, in Iraq. The Iraq war started out small, end ended up being a war of 11 years. This is bound to happen. We must not repeat our mistakes.
ReplyDeleteIf our military stepped foot in syria, they wouldnt be alone. The U.S. has allies, and so does Syria. If we stepped in, China, and Russia, would step in as well. The rebels do deserve help, and I think it would be necessary to help them in small ways such as supplies of weopans, and intelegence. If lets say, the rebels seem to loose, or the syrian government does something extreme against its own people, then the U.S. military might have to take action and help. But if not, it is completely unnecesary.
4B
4B-39
ReplyDeleteI think that the U.S should not intervene because we cannot afford to, and this is Syria's problem, not ours. The US can't act as the policemen of the world, and intervening in every other country's business. If we were to intercede in Syria, then that would be setting a precedent for us to get involved in every other country's business. Also, we have very minimal information on who the rebels are and their situation. If the US were to intervene in Syria, then it would be like going in blindfolded. It is way too costly right now for the US to step in. This is a matter that NATO should address instead of just the US. We've seen many examples of how badly US interventions turn out. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, we have bigger problems at home to be taken care of. First we should tend to our problems here in the US. Additionally, Syria's biggest allies are China and Russia. Russia and China would both get involved if we were to, which would probably end up causing a huge war. Overall, I think it's unnecessary for the US to get involved in Syria's current conflict.
Being the strong, powerful country that it is, The United States should be helping Syria. We are a first world country, whereas they are not. They don’t have access to all of the resources that we do. They cannot just gather all supplies they need to fight, because they do not have them. Many innocent people are dying. Men, women, and even children, that have done nothing wrong to their country are losing their life because they do not have the proper equipment to protect it Without the help and support of us, and other countries Syria’s fight between the rebels, and the government, will come to a tragic end in the governments favor.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, just because The United States is strong and powerful, doesn’t mean that we MUST help them. The USA is known as the country that goes in to help all of the other countries to fight. But that is not necessarily the best reputation to have. If we help Syria, like we have helped other countries, then when countries are debating whether to fight against their own government or not, they will choose yes, because they know the United States will be there to help them out. Now what happens if we can’t afford to help out those countries? Other countries end up being mad at us for not being able to help the countries in need. At one point or another, we will end up being known as the country that can help everyone else. When we can’t come through, problems with arise. It might be better to say no now, than to get in more trouble later.
4b #7
ReplyDeleteMany people believe that the U.S showed provide troops in Syria. However why risk the loss of more U.S troops. Instead, I believe we should send aid. Aid in the form of weaponry, and shelter. With weaponry, comes sending military equipment (guns, tanks, ammunition, etc.). Providing shelter includes giving money for safe houses in neighboring countries such a Turkey and Iraq. Also, making sure the war refugees have food, water, and safe communities. Finally, when the war is over we should have a close eye on the government to make sure it is not complete chaos and/or no government at all. I feel this is a suitable plan for the Syrian conflict;although, there are some flaws. For one, America has recently reached $3 trillion in debt. This makes it hard to give supplies/money to a country at war. Also, like we discussed in class, this sets the standard for other countries that are in the same situation. So if we ate to follow up with this plan will we have to keep doing it again, and again? This it what I feel should be done about the Syria conflit
2B-#14
ReplyDeleteThe Syrian conflict is well known all around the world. The president, more so dictator, Bashar al-Assad is causing misconduct in his country and the civilians want him out of power. They think it is time for a new leader, who can better aid their country. However the government has other plans, they want al-Assad to remain in power and will do anything to keep it that way, whether it means killing their people or not. Due to this, not only are rebels dying, but innocent residents of Syria are being murdered. In my opinion, this is not a fair situation, and as America, I think we should step up.
The Syrian rebels deserve our assistance, and I think we should try our best to help them. Yes, it is true Syria is not our country so I don't think we should send over troops and risk getting our own citizens killed. This is not mandatory, as there are many other ways for which we can get involved. First of all, we could send over money and supplies. Equipment can range anywhere from guns to food, water and other daily needs. Syria isn't exactly what you would call a first world country, so they would take what they could get. By transmitting money, the resistance squad would be able to buy their own materials because they know first hand what they are in need of. I am aware that America is trillions of dollars in debt and this wouldn't help, but by sending over supplies, that wouldn't even make a dent in comparison with the actual debt crisis. I also believe it would be a smart idea to send over help, not as in army help, but just supporters and volunteers. They would be able to safely transport the innocent civilians to safe havens so that they wouldn't be killed by the dictator's brutality. They could also transfer the food and water so that while away from home, the citizens would still be safe. There are many other ways, along with the few mentioned, America could directly aid Syria without sending in our army. It not only would aid Syria, but who knows, maybe if we step up other countries would too. As Americans, it should be our duty to be a role model to other countries. Possibly if we give just a bit of help, other countries would feel obligated to do so too. With bits of help from each country, maybe we all can work together to assist the rebels and in time, they would be able to overthrow their drastically over-due tyrant.
(I think this is my number, but just in case it isn't, this is Kaylah).
2B #20
ReplyDeleteI believe that the US should help Syria in their time of need. Bashsar Al-Assad is murdering innocent people and this needs to stop at any cost. The US should give arms to the rebels and make safe territories all around Syria like Turkey Jordan and so on. We are the only ones that can help this country rise and if we help them they will be gratefull to us and we will have more friends of ours in the area. Of course, we will probably be none after this to help all countries in this situation but why can't we? We as humans should take the responsibility to help and take care of each other. We shouldn't wait any longer to react.
In my opinion, the best thing to do in Syria is to stay out. Some ramifications of this would be that it worsens our reputation for helping/getting involved with everything. Also, more death may occur in Syria. My response to this is that even if we do help and possibly protect and defuse the situation, it will cost even more lives to go in there with soldiers. Overall, the best thing to do is to have them fight in their own battle and not get involved for our own safety. As selfish and as evil as this sounds, I still believe that it is the best possible thing to do.
ReplyDeleteB3- #8
2B-8 not 3B
DeleteB2 #9
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it is time that the United States do something to help Syria. There are thousands of men, women, and children that have died. The United States has to give either military support or financial support to the rebels. This proposition, though costly, is badly needed. If we do not step in Bashar Assad will eventually kill off the rebel and more victims. How many people have to die before people realize how horrible this dictator really is? The United States needs to take action!
2B-18
ReplyDeleteI personally think we should stay out of Syria. We have enough problems in America and there are other negative outcomes to us intervening in Syria. First and foremost we could easily offend Russia and China, two of our biggest allies. They have disagreed to taking action in Syria. Also if we go into Syria and spend money helping the rebels then every country in a rebellion will expect our help. We will set a precedent that we will regret later on. Even if we only set up safe zones like some people suggest we will have to guard them. And if we are attacked by Bashar al-Assad we will have to protect ourselves which will lead to fighting. In any outcome we will have to spend money or troops or both which is why America should not intervene in the chaos that is Syria.
4B-24
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the US should intervene with the conflict in Syria, but we shouldn't use any part of our military in the process. Any other solutions presented by other countries have proven to be ineffective, and if somebody doesn't do something about it, the entire country of Syria could fall apart. By using military presence in our solution, we could end up offending our allies or enemies, and we have enough internal problems in the US alone at the moment. We don't need another war with the Middle East, and if we use he military we could start another war.
B2-11
ReplyDeleteEver since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'ath party started in 2011, the U.S. has been debating on what we should do. If we should step in, or if we should just let the Syrians resolve it themselves. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages, so there really isn't a correct option. We could do nothing, but protesters would continue to die and the violence would continue. In addition, the reputation of the U.S. could worsen, because other countries look badly on the fact that we are letting people die. Alternatively, if we take action, like arming the rebels, they can defend themselves against the Syrian Army. However, this will cost the U.S. money that we don't have and send us even deeper into debt. We could also try a more peaceful method of resolving the conflict, like diplomacy. Nevertheless, it most likely wouldn't come to a mutual agreement. There are many different options that the U.S. could use, with each having their own advantages and disadvantages. I think that the U.S. should choose an option, because the civil war needs to end. People are dying left and right, and we aren't doing anything. We choose an option for its great advantages and figure out how we are going to deal with the disadvantages. Whichever option the U.S. chooses, they should make it quick, so that as many lives as possible are spared.
2B-4
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the United States should mind its own business and wait to help others. I very much understand the fact that innocent people are being killed and understand how dangerous the situation is. However, U.S. is not yet financially stable and recently returned from war. United States needs to take a break and focus on their issues before we come around and act as everyone’s life raft. Syria is asking a lot from us. For example; providing weapons to fight with, and soldiers on the battle field, and even food. I feel America just needs to take a step back from all the chaises and decide what to do about our own country.
4B-31
ReplyDeleteI believe that the USA should help Syria due to the large amount of murders. We have sat in our country, watching innocent people be slain for to long. We should establish safe zones for the citizens to flee into and give them food. The USA should not use the military to help Syria. Military aid would cause more problems with allies and enemies than other types of aid would. Overall I believe we should help Syria
2B #1
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should help the Syrian people because Assad is killing everyone whether they are part of the rebellion or not. It's not fair to the innocent Syrian civilians and since we have the power to change that we should. I understand that getting directly involved is dangerous for not only us but our allies, but it's the right thing to do. We have been avoiding the problem when by getting rid of Assad will be the solution for both America and Syria. The rebels may be able to hold the fort down for now, but eventually Assad will probably kill off all of his people. America should take action before it's too late to save anyone else.
2B
ReplyDeleteWith all the horrible things happing in Syria I think we should help. Standing by and watching isn’t doing anything and what forces Al Assad to listen to the rules the U.N. makes? What If you were being shot at by the person you who’s supposed to lead you and nobody stepped in to help? There would be no way you could do it by yourself. We have to help Syria or else many more innocent people will be killed. Every day that we wait more and more people get harmed. I for one am not for war but just because we are helping doesn’t mean we must fight. I believe medical help is what is most important right now. By helping the people who are harmed and transferring the civilians out of war zones I believe we would be doing what is necessary to save lives.
NO BLOG NUMBER
DeleteB2-?
What to do about Syria?
ReplyDeleteThe best solution in this situation in the eyes of those who wish for no more bloodshed in Syria, is to send in peacekeeping troops with U.S. officials to resolve the conflict peacefully. The point of the peacekeeping forces is to maitain orderly conduct of civilians who are after Al-Assad and Syrian armed forces who are in possition of weapons. While there peacekeeping forces must prevent any conflicts between the Syrian Government and civilians. If these forces are able to maintain peace in Damascus of Syria then maybe there could be a peaceful meating between the Syrian rebels and the Syrian government.
#22
Sorry I don’t know my blog number (I am Vandana).
ReplyDeleteBlock- 2B
The US should try to not get involved with war. This is because it will just cause more problems in the area. Also, it will cause many Americans to lose their lives. They should talk to neighboring countries and make them negotiate with Syria. This will cause less violence and the US would still help solve the conflict in Syria.
Sorry I don’t know my blog number (I am Vandana).
ReplyDeleteBlock- 2B
The US should try to not get involved with war. This is because it will just cause more problems in the area. Also, it will cause many Americans to lose their lives. They should talk to neighboring countries and make them negotiate with Syria. This will cause less violence and the US would still help solve the conflict in Syria.