Respond to the questions below. 1 paragraph each. Complete sentences.
Post your responses as comments. Leave your first name and last initial under your comment, as well as your block number.
What should the US do about Syria? Be specific in your suggestions and include possible drawbacks of your proposed actions (or inaction).
What can and should other countries and international organizations do to end this conflict? Do you think these things will happen? Why or why not?
I think that the United States should butt out of this conflict. It’s not even our fight. We had our own civil war, so they should be entitled to have theirs. We put the democratic government there… That could have been a mistake. Just because it works here, doesn’t mean it will work there. It’s like a baby. If the baby’s learning how to walk if you hold it’s hands the whole way it won’t learn how to walk on it’s own. If it falls and we rush over it won’t learn how to pick itself back up. It’s just like that in Syria. It might be hard to watch them fall, but they have to learn to get up brush off and put the pieces of the puzzle back together.
ReplyDeleteOther countries around the boarders should watch out for Syria and any “battles” that are going on, but Syria needs to do the hard work of putting itself back together. We can watch and help but nothing really else.
Chelsea M. Block 5-A
The United States should go into Syria as planned and try to fix our mess. We forced our democracy on them and their lives got worse. In the long run, we caused this, we should make an attempt to fix it without making more of a mess. Some drawbacks are that we may be in Syria while another country gets tired of the refugees and begins to fight Syria. This could escalate the war into something in between multiple countries at once.
ReplyDeleteOther countries need to hold out and wait for the dispute in Syria to end. If they step in while America is there a world war could eventually emerge. THe Arab union has done what they can, The UN should make more attempts for intervention.If the UN keeps repeatedly trying, Russia and China will eventually succeed to the movement
Anthony Kahwaty
Block 5- A
The United States should not use military force against Syria. If the United States does attack Syria, other countries and/or terrorists could gain access of the chemical weapons. This threatens the safety of the United States. In addition, Syria may use the chemical weapons against our soldiers during war. Another fact is that different countries have different opinions on the situation. If American soldiers set foot in Syria, another world war could start.
ReplyDeleteSyria should admit to having used chemical weapons. They crossed the crossed the global red line, and therefore, Asaad should lose his position as president. He put the country in this situation and without him, this conflict could be resolved.
Neha T.
Block 5A
They crossed the global red line*
DeleteI don't think that the USA has engage in a military action because the situation can then expand into our nation and then turn into a war, maybe even turn into the next world war, which we hope that will not happen. I think we should engage in this situation passively, so that we don't encounter into any conflict with Syria. By doing this, we would destroy the chemical weapons found in Syria, and then the civil war within Syria would continue. However, the Syria Regime may be planning on ambushing us when we head to Syria to destroy the chemical weapons, but if such a thing were to happen, then it would be necessary to retaliate with military force.
ReplyDeleteI think the other countries as well as the international organizations should keep on pressuring Syria, so that the Syria Regime would give up on this war and on using chemical weapons. However, I don't that this will happen because it is confirmed that the US and Russia have come up with an agreement to destroy the chemical weapons in Syria, and by mid 2014, this conflict with chemical weapons would have been resolved.
Aditya Oka
Block 5A
America should not interfere in what is going on in Syria. It is their Civil War and every country is entitled to having one. Right now things look bad but if we have learned anything from history, this war maybe something good for Syria. America went through their own Civil War back in the late 19th century and it was devastating. Millions upon millions of people were killed in that war and America never had any interference from any outside nations. Although some countries were planning on interfering they decided not to at the last minute and America was free to handle the situation. During the Civil War America was falling apart and after it ended, America was closer than ever. The road to recovery helped them come together and Syria is going through this right now. Their country has fallen apart, but when this is over Syria will be able to recover and has a chance of becoming a stronger nation. If America interferes, Syria will never learn how to become independent. Watching the many people die is hard and no war is easy to watch, but America will only cause problems if they interfere. If America interferes chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands endangering the people in America. In addition, if America bombs Syria the effect could also kill many civilians in and outside of Syria. Even worse a third world war could start and that means complete chaos for the world.
ReplyDeleteIf countries want to help, they should help the neighboring countries that are suffering from the warfare. Thousands of refugees keep pouring into countries like Jordan and Lebanon and it is getting really difficult for them to handle. Both countries are already not doing well economically, and now they are put into a position where they have to support thousands of more people than they can handle. America and the European Union and all other countries opposing Regime should send money to these countries to help make better camps for the refugees, so they have better food and living conditions. In addition, if the violence spills over, the neighboring countries should receive some protection, perhaps some soldiers could go and help their military that way if any Syrian violence enters another country, the military can offer some protection. Will these things happen, no one knows? There is a chance that America and the European Union may send over money and protection to help the neighboring countries, however if military action should be used will always be a question unanswered.
Yoshi A
5A
Kaleb B 5A
ReplyDeleteI have issues with both sides of the situation. If America does interfere with Syria, we run the risk of wasting resources, getting hurt and possibly killed for playing police of the world. But, on the other hand, I would feel horrible for not interfering because there are innocent people being wounded and killed. For me, there are drawbacks either way.
I feel like other countries and international organizations should peacefully urge the Syrian government to stop the senseless violence. They should basically ask them to give up their chemical weapons without a physical confrontation. On the other hand, if they continue to bomb their own people, then I believe that other countries should respond with force. I know it may sound stupid fighting fire with fire, but there has to be a point where something needs to be done.
The US should continue giving Syria help through words, such as suggestions on how they should go about this war. I don’t think in any way should we bring government forces into this unless they attack us with government forces. Some drawbacks of only using words is Syria not listening to us and taking our words into different meanings. Although, I feel using words is the best way to get through this conflict for right now.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other countries they should be doing the same. Not only should they only be helping Syria directly with words but they should also all start agreeing with each other and pass an international resolution that will fully help and end this terrible and tragic war. At no point should any country use force unless it is passed through everyone and there is a logical reason for doing so. I think that with everyone agreeing and passing some type of resolution that there actually is a possibility that this could end the war that is going on in Syria. Although, the only way it can be ended is with everyone coming together and helping we can have certain countries like Russia and China vetoing all the decisions that everyone else has agreed on. But at this point in time I do not think that everyone will come together and help Syria out as an international nation. I feel this way because with all the evidence that we have China and Russia want nothing to do with signing over its right to veto resolutions given for Syria.
Courtney L 5A
Cori C 5A
ReplyDeleteI think the US should wait for the UN's decision, and stay out of Syria. If the US had not been able to fight our own civil war, we would not be as strong and independent as we are now. The situation is similar to Iraq, and when we finally pulled out of there, it left the country unsure of whether or not It could govern and protect itself. Picking a side in a war that is not ours to fight will inevitably put a target on our back. Many people of the world already hate us for our rights and beliefs, so why would the US go into an area that is unstable and dislikes us and make it worse? President Obama states that Syrian government crossed the line, but it is not our job to protect everyone. The US should not interfere unless the UN asks us to do so. Going into Syria could bring us into war, and our boys (and girls) should not be put in the line of danger unless it is absolutely necessary. War always has the potential to cause a draft, meaning that many young men, including eighteen year olds who have not even graduated high school yet could be drafted and pulled away from their studies to be at best scarred from what they may see or at the worst, dead. Eighteen is considered an adult, but is eighteen years of life really enough? It's barely two decades. Even though eighteen year olds are considered adults, they are still young kids themselves, and should not have to face the hardships of war, whatever they may be.
As for the other countries, they should stay out of Syria until the UN has it's final verdict as well. I think Syria has the potential to be the next world war, as it is not in an ideal location and if anyone oversteps the set boundaries, they will also be violating the international laws. If any one country makes a mistake, which as human we are liable to do, it may anger and stress thin bonds. The US and Russia have a strained relationship at best, and if anyone and the US oversteps the set boundaries, Russia may very well declare war on us. Our allies in return would then rally with us, as would Russia's, leaving very few out of the war, and eventually, the few neutral countries would get sucked in too.
DeleteI don't think these things will happen because everyone seems anxious to get involved.
DeleteSorry about the awkward format of my answer I kept realizing I forgot to answer another part of the question.
The U.S. should not get involved in Syria’s conflict. If the United States gets involved and sends military aid to Syria, the conflict might only continue to escalate. Attempting to fight them regime will cause more chaos in the country. There will be a larger amount of weapons in the country. There will be more refugees fleeing from the countries. Lastly, an attack of the U.S. will cause neighboring countries to become more involved and World War III could potentially erupt.
ReplyDeleteI think that other countries shouldn’t do anything to get involved. They should let Syria handle it themselves. Again, becoming involved will cause more chaos. Even if other countries wanted to help the Syrians, they have no money to do so. Neighboring countries are too poor to act in any way.
Hallie M.
Block 5A
In my opinion, I think the United States should not be a part of this conflict. This conflict is between the Syrian rebels and the Syrian government. If we engage in military action, it could lead America into catastrophic events. For example, look back at the wars between Iraq and Afghanistan which started in 2003. We used military force in those wars, and when we went in and tried to get out quick, that didn't work. America was held responsible for leading that entry. Leaving quickly was clearly out of the question. Looking back at past events, America should keep thinking about their decision to use Military Action towards Syria. It might help under some circumstances, but it could hurt us in the long-run. The chemical weapons could be used against us, and just by the US taking military action, it could start a World War. Syria has to handle this on their own. They need to sit down, and think about what they are going to do.
ReplyDeleteI think other international organizations and countries bordering Syria should have an open mind about what is going on. They should keep an eye out for any sudden events that could occur. So many refugees keep leaving Syria and go to neighboring countries like Lebanon, and Jordan. More than 2.5 million people have fled their homes in Syria since this whole war started back in March of 2011. Those countries are now having a tough time dealing with all these people, and they also have to worry about their own people. Overall, using Military Action against Syria is such a risky thing to do. Anything could happen such as a huge war sparking up with us involved.
Victor C. Block 5A
The US should obviously help Syria in some sort of way. However, we need to be careful that people that do not agree do not come back at us. The US should send the people in Syria medicine, clothing, and food. These items will help the people who are in desperate need. If the US does this some people may not like it that we are helping the civilians. Then, with their weaponry, they could possibly attack us.
ReplyDeleteAs much as we want to help Syrians, there isn't much we can do. We can do things like send the people who cannot leave Syria, food, medicine and other things or possibly military assistance. We had our own civil war. Although it was a long time go and was very different, they are still very much the same. We battled it out and they need to also if they want it to be resolved. It will all end eventually but that is the most we can do for them for now.
-Emily C.
Block 5A
I don't think the the US should intervene into the Syrian conflict with a military strike. I think that it is already to late to do so, and that we should have done it much earlier, before Al Qaeda sided with some of the rebels. Now, we don't know exactly which rebels are with the terrorist group and who isn't. Therefore, if a military strike led to the downfall of the regime, it may be a possibility the Al Qaeda would take leadership, which is much, much worse than Bashar al-Assad. Also, President Obama stated that we might want to intervene because they used chemical weapons that killed over 1000 people. Does the other 100,000 people killed with bullets and shells not matter? A military strike might pull us into a much larger war. Back when we went into Iraq to get Saddam Hussein, it was supposed to be a get in and out fast situation, and we know how that turned out. It is too late to attack.
ReplyDelete-Eric H.
Block B2
I believe that the US should create a deal with Syria and have the UN agree upon it. Since President Obama made it clear that the citizens in Syria are being affected by these chemical weapons and the battles breaking out, we should give Syria 30 days to hand over their chemical weapons to the UN to be destroyed. This would mean that if Syria doesn't comply with the deal, the US would use international intervention plan by using military force. The drawbacks of this plan would be having the weapons falling into the wrong hands or even being used against us. I do believe that the situation in Syria is only getting worse and so if we can use the military force, we could make two outcomes. 1. The military fixes the problem within Syria with little combat and lets Syria continue to a rebirth. 2. The military force unleashes more of the chemical weapons, killing many civilians and our army. This could even increase the level of violence. If we don't do something this war will keep going on and let people starve and die in brutal ways. Our top concern is for the Syrian people to be safe and to end the war in a way that the least amount of people die. The deal could end the torture of the chemical weapons and would decrease the violence.
ReplyDeleteOther countries and international organizations could come together and all agree at the UN for a deal for Syria. I can see these happening because, every country just wants the violence to end for the people in Syria and so does the global community. We could help neighboring countries by giving supplies and extra care to the refugees so that these people can survive. Many international countries could help countries such as: Jordan and Lebanon by giving them extra support. These countries truly need that because, they could barely support their people before Syrian's civil war. We can't just sit here and ignore that people are dying over there and that we have the power to come up with something to help the situation. I know that whenever I turn on a TV and look at all the news channels, all the stories are mainly about Syria so looking the other way in America needs to end. If we were Syrians fighting for our lives, I know I would want some way of support to stay alive. I believe that soon the UN will have to face a major problem within Syria and they need to make some kind of deal before it's too late.
Brett B. A5
I think that the US should keep out of Syria’s issue for a little longer at least till the time that the US is really needed. Right now I believe that Syria will be able to solve it eventually because all problems can be solved if you try hard enough. Although a possible drawback of the US not doing anything to help Syria may turn into a World War or something, It still is important to try and keep out of killing more people to try and solve a problem that may not be solved from the doing of that. I think that most countries and international organizations should just try and take in the Syrian citizens who are fleeing Syria and make sure they have what the need to survive while this is going on and maybe not add more restrictions to Syria as there are already so many. I think that the countries and other international organizations can make this happen if they try hard enough. I also think that Syria will find a solution on their own but could take some time.
ReplyDelete-Marshall R.
2B
I believe that the United States should stay out of the conflict with Syria because we cannot solve other people’s problems. Whenever another country has an internal conflict or conflict with a surrounding country, we cannot always step up and be the heroes. They need to learn how to buil up their military and defend themselves. We are already trillions of dollars in debt and the last thing we need is a potential war on our hands. There is no definite that our negotiations or direct military actions are going to help solve the problem and that could escalate in a way that has to bring other countries’ militaries to action. This could bring unwanted force into the conflict, which could lead to a full-on war. Instead the United States should give their support of the United Nations invading as a whole and helping with the negotiations and medical aid. Overall, I believe that the United States should stay out of the conflict and not bring any military force into Syria.
ReplyDeleteEven though I believe that the United States should not intercede on their own, I do believe that they should assist the UN with their negotiations and send in medical aid and money. If the international community acts as a whole, it would be more threatening to Syria then just America acting on its own. More pressure on Syria from the rest of the world would be more effective and persuasive then just one or two countries trying to invade with military threat. In the case of the UN, I believe that military use should be a last resort, instead a more peaceful approach first such as diplomacy. Negotiations should try to be reached, but one important factor being that ali-Assad step down from his position as president. I believe that this could very well happen seeing as a negotiation is already in the process and the UN is proposing an agreement with Syria about their chemical weapons. The international community should act as a whole and try to negotiate with the Syrian regime and have military force be a last resort.
-Jamie T.
B day Block 4
Taylor R. Block B-2
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the United States should stay out of the conflict in Syria. Our ally, Britain, has already said that they will not be getting involved in the situation, which is exactly what we should do The U.S has been overlooking the conflict, and we have troops prepared for the unexpected. We need to stop being the world's police, it's not our problem and we should stay out of it. A drawback in doing this, would be losing our reputation. But, what is more important, protecting our people and troops, or our countries reputation? If anything were to happen, the U.S would be ready to step in at anytime, but for right now we should just continue to overlook the situation and remain where we are.
Other countries and international organizations should, for right now, stay out of the situation. Some of the smaller and boarding countries of Syria are unable to handle the amount of refugees and struggle to maintain control. The fighting will not end, but by adding more countries into the conflict will only make it worse. Syria should handle its problems, other countries should not get involved. I do not think that this will happen because some countries seem very eager to get involved and try to resolve the conflict.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe that the United States should not use any kind of military action towards Syria. There are too ,many risks and drawbacks that could come with sending in troops of our own. For instance, the whole reason and goal of this operation is to end death and violence in Syria. If we send even more troops into the already chaotic country, even more people will die, whether they are from the regime or the rebels. Also, the act of sending troops into Syria could completely backfire on us, and the regime could end up winning the "war", causing the U.S.A to be yet another enemy of a Middle Eastern country. The whole point of using military force is to stop the use of chemical weapons. However, military force could just provoke the regime into using many more chemical weapons, again, causing death. Another reason is that Civil Wars are meant to be played out by the country itself. If there are other outside forces preventing the Syrians to gain independence on their own, the conflict could billow out of proportion and could spread to other neighboring countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that all that other countries around the world could do is to help the Syrians. Their Civil War needs to play itself out and the only way that international organisations like the U.N. could do is to provide supplies, food, and water to the refugees and to the common people. People who had never thought they would be part of such a violent conflict need these resources to survive since there are so many interventions and bans held against them. Other neighboring countries, such as Turkey and Jordan also need great amounts of extra food and water because there are thousands of refugees pouring into their lands in great need of assistance and energy. By not only providing essential life supplies to the Syrian people but also to Syria's neighboring countries, refugees can be fed and healthy, again, going back to the fact that we need to prevent death. If a country wants independence, Civil War will happen and today, it just so happens to be Syria's turn.
-Vidisha N.
Block A5
I think that the US should bomb strategic locations that house the chemical weapons if Syria does not comply so that less people die in this civil war. If this happens then we would send a strong message to Asad to stop the conflict going on. Possible drawbacks are that some countries might resent us if we do bomb Syria. Also, Syria and its allies might threaten us or other UN countries like Israel. Also quite a few people might be killed if we bomb chemical weapon sites.
ReplyDeleteI think that international organizations and other countries should end the conflict by pretty much destroying their main weapon: chemical weapons. I think that despite the long and agonizing talks between countries I think that we will eventually bomb strategic locations in Syria including chemical weapons facilities. I think that we will because more people will die and give us more reasons to bomb it. If we don’t bomb Syria then other countries might say that we have messed up our reputation in not doing anything about it. But if we do bomb Syria, the civil war might die down, but other countries might resent us and threaten us with war. So we should save as many lives as we can instead of waiting it out.
Brandon H. Block 4
Sumaarg Pandya – Block 2-B
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. has many reasons for and against being involved with the Syrian conflict. The citizens feel the US betrayed them with false policies that also affect our reputation. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups could spring against the US, oil prices will sky rocket, and global action will take place depending on the action of US. So, how do we win support of the Syrian people without causing a massive ripple? We must find a middle ground that helps our interests and beliefs, aid the citizens and those affected, as well as stay NEUTRAL in the war, and merely be in Syria for the humanitarian beliefs. This way, the extremists in the rebels and government won’t lash out against us, Syria’s resources, unless sanctioned, will be available at a reasonable cost, and our reputation as the “International Police” would maybe be changed to “International EMT”. The cost would be only for supplies, medication, and essentials (food, clean water, ect.) which can easily be paid off by donations and charities, unlike the cost of military intervention. We provide humanitarian assistance so our policies seem to have an impact. Syria is a delicate subject, and a single wrong move can ignite a roaring fire.
The international communities have a tough job, but it can be solved with cooperation (highly unlikely, but not impossible). The conflict, like many others, started with a disagreement in ideas, politics, and religion. In order to separate these differences, we must rearrange Syria into smaller individualized countries where each group/groups have their own land, similar to Yugoslavia. To make Russia agree, we can send the Alawites’s country in the land where Russia has its naval base. If Russia agrees, then, most likely, China will, too. Make each of the newly formed countries rebuild, and make more powerful nations watch for weapons for attack (not defense), keep their military in control, and report terrorism in each of them. Does, conflict between the countries won’t happen. Now you might say, how will we persuade the Syrian’s to do this? Sure, the rebels would love to have their own government, and extremist would lessen, but don’t the Alawites love to stay in power? How do we persuade them to move? We, with Russia on board, sanction them. Weapons trade with Russia, oil trade, and support would change. The newly formed countries are in such bad shape, that they will have to comply. Russia will still have its needs, our allies in the Middle East are safer, and less conflict (aiming for peace, though) will follow.
Where I drew some ideas (hopefully didn’t copy):
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/world/syria-why-care/index.html
and Mr. Malagold’s class
SUMAARG PANDYA© – 2B
ps: the indentations got messed up in the copy-and-paste process from my WORD doc.
DeleteI think that America should only launch an air strike on Syria to punish it for using chemical weapons. I think this because if they don't chemical weapons could be used by other countries too, if the law is not enforced. Otherwise, I think America shouldn't get involved. It is not America's problem. Plus america just fought a war in Iraq for almost the same reason and that didn't turn out very well. On the other hand, if America doesn't get involved and Syria's civil war is over then Syria's new government might attack America because America didn't help them.
ReplyDeleteI think that the other countries should help the refugees and put more economic sanctions on Syria. They should help refugees by helping them leave Syria, helping them from going hungry and just helping them to make their already difficult lives easier.Not only that but,I think that the other countries should put more economic sanctions of Syria to make just to make it harder for the Syrian government and since the refugees would be in a different country it wouldn't affect them. Also, at the same time not actually going into battle against Syria and letting the war play out itself because if they did then another giant war like World War 3 might start.In my opinion other countries can't do very much without actually starting a regional war or another world war and I think it would be better if the conflict doesn't escalate more than it has to because more violence only leads to even more violence. In general,there is no easy way to end the conflict. Finally,I think this could happen because some of Syria's neighboring countries are helping the refugees and there are already a lot of economic sanctions on Syria.
Caroline O.
2B
I don't think that the United States should use military action against Syria. The US should be focusing on its own people and internal problems instead of a conflict in a foreign country that doesn't affect the US much at all. If the US did intervene now it could possibly escalate the conflict, which means more people would be killed and displaced. Though I think all countries should agree that they need to take away all chemical weapons from Syria, whether they be in the possession of rebels or the regime.
ReplyDeleteIf the conflict began to involve other countries, then I think the US and the UN should intervene. I think that if other countries in the region began to attack Syria for whatever reason or vice versa, it would have gone too far and need the UN to stop it.
Veronica H, A5
Maddie M. 5A
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States should help Syria in any way possible. We have given the country of Syria many suggestions and tried to help them out. Many charity orginizations are providing necessities such as food and clothing for people in Syria. We have elimanated trade with the country and established economic sanctions. Obviously, none of this is helping which means we need to make more drastic decisions. We should be sending troops in to Syria to try to resolve this conflict. This will require bravery and sacrifice from our country but afterall we are America and we are a strong country. As President Obama said, we are not the worlds police, but we cannot stand by and watch innocent people and young children be tortured and killed.
Other countries and international orginizations should realize that even though every country is entitled to their own civil war, we have to draw the line somewhere. Other countries should at least create more economic sanctions with Syria or should be helping the families that are scared and cannot defend themsleves. I do not know if these things will happen. I pray that our country along with other countries will put an end to the horros that are currently happening in Syria.
Vidhi Maisuria Block 2B
ReplyDeleteI think that the US should go ahead and take some action against Syria. I think that we can really help the rebels and neighboring countries of Syria out. Innocent people are dying every day in Syria. The neighboring countries of Syria have taken in thousands of refugees and that's increased their costs and supplies. The US has one of the strongest militaries so maybe we can help out in settling the war. Some possible drawbacks are that the US can get more involved and this may turn into a bigger war, maybe even a world war. Other countries can try to negotiate with Syria to try to end this conflict. I think that this probably will happen. Other countries can try to peacefully negotiate with Syria without any violence. I think that this might happen because many countries want to stop the war and have peace.
I believe that the U.S. should want to help Syria but aren't going to. The last thing the U.S. government wants to do is get involved with other countries problems. The bottom line for the U.S. wanting to help Syria is that every second the U.S. waits and discusses whether they should act or not, more and more lives are being lost. The use of chemical weapons is also a big deal involved with this act. The U.S. made an agreement to destroy all chemical weapons by the middle of the year 2014. If they destroy these weapons, this should hopefully minimize the amount of deaths to occur in the future. Though overall, no matter which way you go for the U.S. government, the best choice to a t or not is the one that leads to the least amount of lives lost.
ReplyDeleteChris H. -2B
I believe the US should help Syria, but not necessarily play the role of the “international police.” What I mean by this is that, Syria right now is going through their civil war which means that it should be them and them only fighting themselves. I do agree that other countries should indeed take away chemical weapons and at least try and make an effort to help the civilians get food, clothing, and new shelter. If the United States decides to get the military involved there could be more problems with Syria and even with the US and other countries
ReplyDeleteI believe that the countries surrounding Syria should be on high alert if something happens in Syria and be on defense for themselves just in case things get even more out of hand. Other countries should only be focusing right now on the illegal use of chemical weapons and destroying it, and not getting involved in Syria’s business. As stated before, there’s a high chance for things going out of hand in all sorts of directions.
~Danielle C.
2B
In my opinion, the US should help Syria. However, I do not agree with the idea of a military attack. When we previously attempted solving a situation with military strikes, it landed us in the middle of a war. Syria has the capability to strike back, and use their chemical weapons against us. Instead of a strike, I think we should organize diplomacy, and try to get the president to step down. However, if the president does choose to step down, this may result in a war for power among the rebels. Also, the president may refuse to leave office.
ReplyDeleteAs for other countries ending this conflict, there is not much anyone can do. While I believe every country should continue to assist Syria by sending money and medical aid, I don't believe any country should attempt a military strike without the support of the UN. I do believe the UN should further attempt to take Bashar al-Assad out of government, but the chances of this happening are highly unlikely without China and Russia's support. As for the war right now, I don't believe there is much that any country can do without the risk of starting World War III.
~Catherine L
4B
I believe that the United States should not become directly involved with the Syrian conflict. It is indubitable that the war needs to be ended, but it isn’t logical for the Untied States to intervene on the warfare. By doing this, our country would be practically setting itself to be involved with the expanding crisis, and that wouldn’t be beneficial on either side. Though, I am not suggesting that this country terminates all of their plans of intervention – joining in on the fighting isn’t the only way to work at bringing the conflict to its end. I am not suggesting more economic sanctions, but, instead, more weaponry restraints.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is hardly anything that other countries can successfully do in order to end the conflict. It would be nearly impossible and highly implausible that all countries within the UN would settle on one plan. Although, if there way a solution, I would believe that it would be not to become directly involved with the war in Syria (as in, to respond violently). A larger amount of countries joining the battle may lead to an escalation of the war.
- Sarah C
2B
I think that the US needs to continue on the diplomatic road we are on. If the diplomatic road falls apart then the US needs to use force in the form of targeted missile strikes on Syria's chemical weapons. A draw back is that Syria's president said that he would attack Israel if we bomb the chemical weapons. Other countries should be help with the diplomacy and help with the force effort by sending troops to help the rebels or take down Assad.
ReplyDeleteJohn Wrobel 4B
I believe the U.S. should take action. In this way I do not mean that we should start bombing the place into oblivion. We need to negotiate a solution, but help the people who are homeless, starving, or jobless. In this way we will show the people that we care. Also, that we don’t want a war to break out. I know this situation doesn’t really affect us that much since we are on the other side of the world, but we are human. We need to think humanely about this situation, lives are being every second that you read this and I don’t believe the U.S.A. should sit around while this happens. If people from our country were being killed every second, what would you want to be done?
ReplyDeleteOther neighboring countries should also show compassion towards these innocent civilians who have been wrapped up in the situation. They should be willing to take in refugees from Syria. I think if enough of the other countries who oppose the Syrian government step up, the government may step down or at least be intimidated. I can't imagine the countries actually standing up, but I want to believe they will.
I know this situation doesn’t really affect us that much since we are on the other side of the world, but we are human. We need to think humanely about this situation, lives are being every second that you read this and I don’t believe the U.S.A. should sit around while this happens. If people from our country were being killed every second, what would you want to be done?
:) Faith Hoos 2B
sorry I accidentally repeated some stuff from the first paragraph that should've been the last paragraph.
ReplyDelete:) Faith Hoos 2B
The United States should not get fully involved in the Syrian conflict. This is because whatever the decision the United States makes casualties will happen. Syria is going through a civil war right now, and America does not need to be the “international police.” In the Civil War, it was fought internally with just our country and it lasted from 1861 to 1865. We are not responsible for what is going on. We are miles and miles away. Even though, everything in Syria that is happening is not justified and is not humane, we cannot control them. We had the same probably, although it was less intense. Chemical poisoning the civilians is not the answer, but the UN and other external sources should take care of the not us. The only way I believe America should get involved if it pertains to two reasons. My first is if we get directly attacked. This is associated with threats and physical weapons, because our military needs to defend us. Next is if we see the more and more innocent civilians dying. The least we can do is send over basic supplies. Food and water are necessities. These people can barely get these products. United States should these supplies not only to Syria but also to the neighboring countries, who are a bit reluctant towards opening their gates. To conclude, the United States should not get fully involved with the Syrian conflict unless we are directly affected. As horrible as this may sound, we have to think about the safety of our own country.
ReplyDeleteOther countries should help those being directly affected. Thousands upon thousands of people are pouring into neighboring countries, such as Jordan and Lebanon. Jordan and Lebanon are struggling now financially and no one really wants to accept refugees, but it is the humane thing to do. Additionally, countries, such as the United Kingdom, United States, and France should put persuade Russia and China, so the UN can help solve this problem. The UN is not allowed to act because of the vetoing votes of Russia and China. In my personal opinion, I do think that people will help the neighboring countries. Additionally I believe that if France, United Kingdom, and United States ask for a “call of action” China and Russia will put down their vetoing rights. Once these two countries realize that this isn’t about alliances anymore and about the people of Syria, I only hope that they will help those less fortunate. I know that this will take a long time but each day thousands of people are being killed. As the international community, when is it too late?
~Anna S
2B
ReplyDeleteI think that the USA should stay out of Syria’s business. Syria has its own problems just as America does, and there is no reason that we should waste more resources and lives to end a problem that is not ours. Unfortunately, if America does not go in more innocent lives will be lost, and the longer this war goes on the worse it will get. America should not get involved unless there is a direct threat to us.
Other countries have options to. Some of these options include making agreements for the regime to step down or possibly for Bashar al- Assad to step down as the leader of Syria. Although Russia has made an agreement with Syria to turn over all chemical weapons so America won’t attack them, so a plan is already in place.
Jesse V. block 4-B
I believe that the US shouldn't do anything about whats happening in Syria just yet. I said just yet because i believe that Syria can handle their own problems and that we don't need to go to Syria and have the same problem that has happened in Iraq, at this point we've been in Iraq for 11 years and were still not sure when we'll get all our troops out. If we go into Syria we would be stuck with the problems that they are facing when we should be dealing with the problems that we are facing, like obesity or global warming, not about a problem that a country on the other side of the world is fighting. If we didn't go into Syria other countries would say "Why didn't US go into Syria to fix everything, you could have stopped so many people from dying?" But either option we choose there's still many people dying with nothing to do to stop it.
ReplyDeleteSo far i believe international organizations should try and get the Syrian government find a way-point that they will agree with and stop attacking syrians with bombs and chemical weapons. Other countries that border Syria should help get refugees to safety before they get hurt for no reason but living in Syria. I believe that international organizations like the UN or Arab League are doing the best that they can do to try and solve the problem in Syria.
Derek D. Block 4B
I feel the United States should not become total supporters to Syria, but should help out a little. They should not go with the idea of military attacks. Therefore meaning no US feet should step on Syrian territory. If we don’t help out a little more and more harmless people’s lives will be lot and Syria will continue to go downhill as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI feel other countries can really only help out so much. And just like the US they should not start any military attacks because we don’t want any more problems to occur.
Kaitlyn H 4B
My opinion is that the United States should intervene with the conflict in Syria. I suggest that the President sends troops to Syria to try to end the conflict as swiftly as possible. Taking action by sending force there seems like the only real solution to this problem. Assuming the deal with Russia doesn't fall through, there's no way to solve this conflict. I am aware that there is a possibility of civilian casualties, which is the last thing anybody wants, but is the life of those few people worth it to save the lives of many others? I think so. Potential drawbacks include: Starting a full fledged war, killing innocent people, and sending our own people to a place they don't want to go. However, because of a promise that we made involving the red line, this is completely necessary. The U.S. needs to save face, and sending troops there is the only way to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe international organizations such as the Arab League and the United Nations can continue in their diplomacy. However, it will most likely amount to nothing. Russia and China are going to be stubborn no matter what, as they are allies to Syria. Without those two countries, both of which have veto rights, coming to their senses, no change is going to occur in the U.N. The Arab League probably can't do anything, because taking force could lead to terrorism across the continent, which nobody wants. If they don't do anything, then they're letting their own people die. So, there really is no simple solution, but the best one is for the U.S. to send troops to Syria. It's just not okay to let anymore innocent people die, because "it's not our job".
Alexander M. Block 4B
Janelle G. Block 4B
ReplyDeleteAmericans have been asked repeatedly about their position on the Syria conflict. Should we go in with military action, diplomacy or not go in at all? The answer is simple for me. Diplomacy is the way to go. I think this because if we don't go in at all, no one will. Also, if we take on Syria with force it may back fire. People have concluded that if we handle the conflict with military action, everything would stop and our problems would be solved. But it could end up being just the opposite. If we bomb Syria and the president steps down, a war between the rebels would start. Eventually, we might find that America is completely involved in another war. We are working on bringing our troops home and since I'm close to a troop myself, I don't want anything pulling them back to fight. If we handle the situation diplomatically, it would go a lot smoother and the drawbacks wouldn’t set us back very far. My ideal way of how we should handle the situation is for Russia to get the weapons from Syria so they can be destroyed. The only problem with this idea is that Russia is on Syria’s side.
It seems like whenever there is an international crisis, the international community doesn’t act together. America has been trying to find out what to do. Our country makes the headlines every day. Our decision is the make or break point and unfortunately, no matter what we eventually decide to do, it’s a lose-lose situation. If we don’t go in, it’s our fault the fight could get worse and if we do it’s our fault people will die. I believe that the countries should all work together and stop calling for America. I get that we have power and some countries might not be so strong, but it puts us in a very bad situation. Our allies don’t even want to work with us. If we simply work together, we wouldn’t have to waste time on if countries would hate us for the decisions we make. We could find something that most agree on and just follow through with the action. If Russia and China use they’re veto ability wisely, then the Syria conflict could be solved soon. It’s all just a matter of putting away morality and focusing on the ethics and the greater good for the world.
Isaiah R. Block 2B
ReplyDeleteI think that the US should stay out of Syria. If the US gets involved then Syria will possibly attack their ally, Israel. Also, if we get involved, there might possibly be another World War. The only reason the US should get involved is if the situation goes into other countries around them. Besides that they shouldn’t get involved.
The international organization should have a compromise. This would allow both sides to be happy. It would also stop the war in Syria. It would let countries not use brute force on them. A compromise would make everyone happy.
I think that the U.S. shouldn't get involved in the conflict in Syria. Although Syrian rebels may need help, I don’t think it is our responsibly or our fight. The conflict is between the Syrian government and the Syrian rebels, not the U.S. I think we should stay out of it because once the U.S. gets involved we put ourselves at risk and in danger of getting attacked. And also, I believe that getting involved will only make the conflict bigger, and much worse than it already is.
ReplyDeleteI think that the neighboring countries shouldn't get involved either. The more countries that get involved, the higher amount of people will die. And if more and more countries start getting involved, the conflict will only get bigger, and nothing will be solved.
Nicole D. Block 4B
I think the US should not get involved in the Syrian crisis. By getting involved, American lives would be jeopardized, and I think Syria is too far from this country to even get involved. Since Syria is halfway around the world from America, I believe that it is not America's responsibility to join in on this war. It will only waste our time, energy, and money to send troops or send aircrafts to Syria to increase the violence. However, if America does get involved, there is a chance that the crisis can stop before it turns into something bigger, but that's not a good enough reason for a country thousands of miles away to get involve d in it.
ReplyDeleteI think that other countries should get involved in this crisis. Countries that are closer to Syria, distance and alliance wise, should get involved and try to end the crisis before it can turn into World War 3. The sooner other countries take action, the sooner the war will be over, and maybe one of those countries can propose a compromise or negotiate with Syria and other countries to help solve the crisis.
Emily Grader 2B
I don’t think that the United States should get involved with Syria. President Obama has always been one to avoid war, however, he is considering stepping into Syria’s problems. If he decides to get involved, he will be putting even more lives in danger that there already are. He will be risking the lives of our troop members and possibly the citizens of the United States, along with the citizens of Syria and their neighboring countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that Syria’s neighboring countries should take care of this situation. They are located closer to Syria and they should be the ones who want to intervene with the chaos. The neighboring countries should want to protect their people and jump into the conflict, making it safer for everyone. The countries should be the ones to collect all chemical weapons from Syria and they should clear this whole situation up because if this goes on any longer, more and more lives will be lost and soon it might be the citizens of their countries being killed and injured.
Sydnie D. 4B
The United States should cut off all supplies of weapons to Syria. The more weapons we transport over to them, the more the numbers of innocent deaths rise. We need to cut the supply so the conflict could slowly die down. Their chemical weapons need to be destroyed also, so the U.S should obliterate any more traces of chemical weapons. We wouldn't get that much of a bad reputation if we took that kind of action.
ReplyDeleteOther countries that border Syria should take the innocent casualties over to their land so fewer lives would be lost. Other countries should also cut off their weapon trade so Syria would have little to no more weapons to fight with. They would soon have to come to negotiate their problems, due to lack of weapons.
Amber A.
3B
The people of Syria are currently facing extreme difficulties, being in the midst of a civil war. Yet, I feel that the violence would still occur or possibly increase if the United States interferes with the situation at this point in time. The US should wait and stay updated on the events happening in Syria, and then decide whether or not to intervene. By potentially bombing areas now, people would become outraged and our troops as well as Syrians would die. If death or other major forms of suffering do not lessen, our country should take action. Drawbacks of this action are that citizens of Syria will face agony in the meantime, our country will be further accused for not lending a hand, and we need to decide when to use military action.
ReplyDeleteOther countries and international organizations can and should converse with one another to end this conflict. Through communication, they would become more connected with each other and form together to force Syria to diminish use of weaponry and overall violence. I do think these things will happen because President Obama is working towards this solution of becoming in contact with several international forces.
Jane U. Block 4B
Tess F. 2B
ReplyDeleteI think the U.S. should follow Britain’s lead and not send troops into Syria. We lost too many American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s no reason to lose more. Simply put, it’s not our problem, why should we interfere and make it our problem? All in all, doing nothing saves American lives and money. This will stop us from going through another huge financial crisis. Not to mention Syria’s threats to attack our ally Israel if we step in to help. Although our reputation might lose credibility and some countries may labels us as cowards, I’d rather us be gossiped about rather than lose lives in a fight that’s not ours.
Countries and international organizations should firstly remove some of the economic sanctions held on Syria. It’s hard for the innocent people to get food or any other basic necessity we take for granted as it is, all of these restrictions are only making the matters worse. Also, various countries such as America and England and Turkey should look to negotiate with Assad. They should find a more or less peaceful way to get Assad out of office and their government removed. I don’t, however, think any of these things will actually occur. Let’s be honest, many international leaders are stubborn and not many think of other countries whilst acting for their own. Finally, I don’t think they think negotiation is a legitimate option at this point in the crisis.
A lot of americans are contemplating on whether to take military action, make a diplomatic solution, or not care about the Conflict in Syria. I believe that the U.S. should aid the people of Syria, but break all bonds with the Syrian government. Although it would cause us economic problems, America should send money, food, tents for shelter, and medical aid to the rebels and refugees suffering the tyranny of their government. By seeing all the fighting that already goes on there, I would say that military action would make matters worse. If you want to help a country, help it’s people, not it’s tyrants.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is not the only country in a dilemma concerning Syria. Many other countries around, and distant to Syria have problems with their own dealing with Syria. I think the neighboring countries should accept all refugees that come to live there, even with food shortages and economic problems. Don’t forget that Israel is under Syria’s boot. If any military action happens in Syria, Israel and the said countries are ticking time bombs.I doubt this will happen though.
Aditya A. 4B
The US should probably not go to war in Syria. The US should stay away from the war in Syria because if the US does go to war the more American lives are taken. Even if they do or do not go to war, the government will still hurt the innocent people. Not only that, but if the US goes to war Assad has said that the government will attack Israel. Therefore, this proves that if the US does go to Syria more lives will be taken.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think nearby countries should probably negotiate with the president. The countries such as Turkey and Iraq have been seeing what is going on in Syria because they are the closest. Therefore, they should negotiate with the president so that fewer lives will be taken. I think that this negotiation will happen because it will hurt less people. This negotiation would satisfy both sides and there will be no violence.
Vandana V. Block 2B
The US should probably not go to war in Syria. The US should stay away from the war in Syria because if the US does go to war the more American lives are taken. Even if they do or do not go to war, the government will still hurt the innocent people. Not only that, but if the US goes to war Assad has said that the government will attack Israel. Therefore, this proves that if the US does go to Syria more lives will be taken.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think nearby countries should probably negotiate with the president. The countries such as Turkey and Iraq have been seeing what is going on in Syria because they are the closest. Therefore, they should negotiate with the president so that fewer lives will be taken. I think that this negotiation will happen because it will hurt less people. This negotiation would satisfy both sides and there will be no violence.
Vandana V. Block 2B
I think the US should not engage in military action due to the severity of Syria, military action could cause an even bigger catastrophe. Syria already has the possibility of evolving into the next “Civil War” which I'm sure most people would agree they do not want to see happen. Although Syria does need help if the US orders a military attack we are endangering both the United States, more Syrians lives and as well as Israeli-ans. President Asad has threatened to attack Israel if the US makes any sudden moves. The US needs to do what ever they can to lend Syria a hand without risking their own country.
ReplyDeleteI do think that surrounding countries like Jordan and Lebanon need to help Syria out and decrease the amount of economic sanctions that are currently in place. Everyone claims they want to help Syria in this desperate time of despair but they are the ones limiting Syrians resources and length of survival. Although, in my opinion involving surrounding countries will create an ever bigger battle, I think that those countries should do as much as they can to help out their neighbor. Countries like Jordan and Turkey and so on don't need to entire the fight, it's the little things that help the most, for example allowing Syrians to gain access to their daily needs. I don't think these accommodations will happen because no one wants to fight someone elses battle. Other countries see how bad Syria is and think that they can't get involved or else it will put their entire country's lives at steak. I'm sure as much as they would like to see Syria recover quickly, they are focused on the safety of their own community first.
Claudia T. Block 2B
I do not believe the United States should go into Syria. Frankly our own country is not doing as well as it has been in the past. I understand we are not killing our own people, but currently we already have our men on the front lines in other wars and other countries. No one wants to see Syria suffer and watch these horrific acts happen, but controversy will stir up if the US gets completely involved. Since Syria still has harmful weapons, I believe the US should make Syria de-armor themselves. These weapons are killing too many of their own people. The US can help Syria by doing this without having to place our men in their civil war.
ReplyDeleteI believe other strong and financially stable countries should step up to help Syria. All the news reports want the United States to go in and help Syrians, but the US shouldn't have to be the leaders or the leader in this battle. I do not believe other countries or organizations will step forward to help Syria because most countries look up to the Untied States for ideas and leadership.
Kaitlyn G. B2
Personally, I think that that US should delay any action for now. Though we cannot seem like cowards, we cannot put innocent lives in danger. That's why I believe that if the US waits until other countries get involved to get involved, we can show power, and have a more likely chance of keeping citezens safe. Also, if we attack, Syria will attack Israel- one of the US's allies. Therefore, the US should wait until further notice.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, other countries, (especially Syria's neighbors) should attempt a peaceful approach towards Syria. If a negotiation occurs, there is a possible chance to save lives, end war, and have peace. Though, if the negotiating doesn't go as planned, countries may be forced to add more sanctions, or even attack Syria for Assad to stop the madness.
Dennis S. 2B
In my opinion, the United States should think this through a little more; no, we don’t want to look like we’re going back on our word, but we also don’t want to make any fast decisions that we might regret later on. Plus, if we took military action, we would have to send in our own men, risking more lives. If we go in too quickly, we may also make more enemies. There are certain people who do not want us to get involved, including our own people. Although we may also make enemies by not doing anything, it would be safer for everyone if we just waited.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the US is still recovering from our previous war in the Middle East, and to get involved in another country’s civil war would mean the risk of pulling ourselves into it as well. Although what is happening in Syria is horrible, and everyone wants it to end, we do not have to go in and fight the war for the rebels, the regime, or even Syria’s neighbors. If Syria’s neighboring country’s want something done, they can take their own military action. If the rebels and the regime want it over, they can form some kind of peaceful agreement. If Russia and China (Syria’s ALLIES) don’t want military force to be taken, they can go in and help form a peaceful solution. After all, they are on Syria’s side, right? And it’s a civil war, meaning in their own country; no one helped us in our civil war, did they?
Amanda E. 4B
I believe the US should stay out of the Syrian conflict. America is not the police of the world and should not have to get involved. Syria should learn how to solve their problem and rebuild their country with peace, not violence. If the US takes action against Syria, even more deaths will be caused, but more deaths will also occur if the US doesn’t act, and lets Syria enact more violence, also. So it’s a lose, lose situation, but if the Syria learns to compromise together in peace, it will prevent even more deaths and damage to the country. Syria’s regime should also hand over its chemical weapons to the UN to destroy it.
ReplyDeleteI think international organizations and other countries should pressure Syria’s regime even more with sanctions to get them to negotiate with the rebels, to reunite the country. I believe this could happen, because this has been going on for two years and Syria is already in economic crisis, so they should try to work this issue out as soon as possible.
Arcenia P.
Block 4 B
Personally, I believe that the US shouldn't get involved in this problem in Syria. One because I feel like this isn't our problem to be dealing with & two, we just got out of war with Iraq, another country on that side of the world. Obama's plans were to stop the wars when he got into office. So he shouldn't start another one.
ReplyDeleteI feel like no one should get involved. This could start another World War. We should let the country handle their issues on their own. But one thing we should defiantly do, which I believe we are, but get rid of the chemical weapons the Government has in Syria.
Rachel P.
Block 2B
Personally I think if Syria keeps killing people the U.S. still should not get involved because the people like Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel the countries that want them to bomb Syria should attack them themselves. If does not hand over there weapons with gases the U.S. should get involved. But if Iran and China start to help Syria with military then they might ignite a world war 3 in my opinion, but that is if China and Iran start to get involved with the Syria military support and also if Syria keeps gassing them.
ReplyDeleteMiguel Q.
Block 4B
In my opinion, the United States should just stay out of the conflict in Syria. Even though what’s going on is terrible, it could get even worse if we engage with them. I don’t think anyone wants to see World War III happen, which is what could occur if we get involved. If other countries want to get involved, then that’s up to them. Personally, I think everyone besides Syria should stay out of it because it is there problem, not ours.
ReplyDeleteLaura S.
Block 5A
My opinion on what the US should do is leave Syria alone. The US suffered a great loss with the situation in Iran/Afghanistan, and we shouldn't get involved in another war after we just got out of one. In addition, I believe that Syria should be able to fight their own Civil War just like the rest of the countries who rebelled against their countries. (such as the US)
ReplyDeleteI believe that the surrounding countries around Syria should attack Syria all together. If this plan is backed by the UN, this plan will work greatly! This would bring Syria down to the ground.
-Marc Anthony M.
Block 5A
I believe that the United States should not go into Syria at this point. We would lose many resources and people. Especially if they used chemical weapons against us. Also, the problem in Syria has to do with the Syria's government, not ours. Therefore, we should not get involved in another country's problem.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that other surrounding countries should not get involved for the same reason we should not get involved.
Griffin H 4B
I think the US should stay out of Syria, The US would suffer a great loss if we were to invade! We have already lost many men from the battles in Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and more. Syrian Rebels, or Government should be able to find their own solution by starting more conflicts, this however would be greatly unfortunate for those involved but in turn would be the US's course of action if we were involved. I strongly believe that the neighboring countries of Syria should however help for they are near the problem and can help the greatest, if they don't help... they could be the next target. All in all, the US should stay out of Syria, and the Neighboring countries however should get into Syria
ReplyDeleteIan Figueroa
Block 5A