http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/26/is-an-attack-on-syria-justified/limited-strike-on-syria-will-lead-to-deeper-intervention module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=undefined&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=blogs
https://lms.dickinson.edu/pluginfile.php/828276/mod_resource/content/1/Schelling%20Daed%202006.pdf
Anchal Kannambadi
Blog post
An attack on Syria does
not seem like a good idea because we are only attacking Syria to restrict the
use of chemical weapons. We should not involve ourselves in a Civil war because
we would only add to the problem. Also being involved in another countries
problem will cost a lot of money, which is definitely not going to help our
country in any way. If we are to assist Syria then we are setting our country
up for retaliation, and after 9/11 and the Boston bombings, we do not need that
devastation to occur. In class we debated on the Weak and failed states and why
they are in such a difficult position, and we came up with the idea that many
of the citizens don’t view their leaders as legitimate leaders. They believe
that they know what is better for their country, so in turn they cause a civil
war, and fight for “freedom.” One thing that I touched upon earlier was the
fact that America does not have the money to fund this attack. We are already
in multiple states of bankruptcy yet we are willing to invade a foreign country
and bomb them for hopes of helping them out? That makes no sense. Something I find
interesting is that we are considering sending our troops, and weapons over to
stop and control what is going on in Syria, however we are not focusing on our
problems. We are jumping up at the idea that we can help fix someone else’s
problem but we are not working on our own government. Yes we want to show Assad
that using Chemical Weapons is wrong, even punishable, but we should not be
interfering in another countries problems when we have our own to work on! An
attack with Syria will also cause mass casualties and we are not at liberty to
harm citizens who are trying to break free from their government. In class some
of us argued that a war with Syria would be The United States of America
asserting dominance over another “weakened” state, however you would only go to
war with a country when you believe that you would win.
In a Realists
perspective, States do not just happen to help other countries. There is always
a benefit for us. We are inclined to assist Syria because we want to show a
united front and we want to help the civilians of Syria that the United States
are willing to help them stand up.
In the article A World Without Nuclear Weapons, we are introduced to the question of whether or not a country would lose a war without resorting to chemical weapons. The article goes on to say how a world without nuclear weapons would be a world that was constantly nervous and on the edge, which is not a healthy way to live. Either way, a war with Syria is not the best idea because if we are to attack them, then we have to be prepared for the repercussions that we will face, such as retaliation and terrorist threats.
In the article A World Without Nuclear Weapons, we are introduced to the question of whether or not a country would lose a war without resorting to chemical weapons. The article goes on to say how a world without nuclear weapons would be a world that was constantly nervous and on the edge, which is not a healthy way to live. Either way, a war with Syria is not the best idea because if we are to attack them, then we have to be prepared for the repercussions that we will face, such as retaliation and terrorist threats.
An attack with Syria will
also cause mass casualties and we are not at liberty to harm citizens who are
trying to break free from their government. In class some of us argued that a
war with Syria would be The United States of America asserting dominance over
another “weakened” state, however you would only go to war with a country when
you believe that you would win.
Getting involved with Syria would, admittedly, cost money. However, I disagree with you on your argument that "being involved in another countries problem will cost a lot of money, which is definitely not going to help our country in any way". First of all, there are horrific atrocities going on in Syria that have been continuing for years now under the Asaad regime. The conditions are so terrible that hundreds of thousands of people have chosen to flee the country in the monumental refugee crisis.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, the US is not "only attacking Syria to restrict the use of chemical weapons." In fact, by attacking Syria, we are trying to help their people, and also to fight ISIS. Yes, as Obama stated, we also are not content with his use of chemical weapons, but the chemical weapons certainly are not the sole reason we have decided to mobilize. By helping Syria, we are helping the US too, because we would be reducing the terrorist threat that ISIS poses throughout Syria.
I agree with Elana in regards to the mutually beneficial as well as humanitarian reasons that the United States has for getting involved in the war in Syria. I would like to expand a bit on the refugee issue as another counter, however. With the increasing number of people fleeing Syria, it has become much more than just a Syrian problem and as a result, sooner or later someone is going to have to act. Because what you said to this point has held true and the United States has not yet overtly involved itself in the Syrian crisis, I argue that if they we are not going to involve ourselves on our own, it is now a matter that can be brought before a humanitarian intervention discussion in the United Nations due to the now global ramifications.
ReplyDeleteBut really I think that even without these other incidents, the United States should already have enough to go as a result of the human rights violations and the potential to stop ISIS, which we have failed to do in the past when opportunity arose.