I personally believe that we should find a way to deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons, even though it is not our war. President Obama said “We cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force,” and I know that with the NATO and the UN all awaiting for the US’ response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, which is a violation of the CWC, which was kind of like a treaty made to eliminate the use of chemical weapons in any kind of warfare, making a decision would be hard. President Obama has asked Congress to hold off on voting whether or not to attack Syria, because Russia, Syria’s ally, has decided to try to convince Syrian officials to put their their chemical weapons under international control, and now we are just awaiting a response from Syria. Cadet Smith, Andre
Agree L.Spicer I agree with the president's decision due to the fact that If Syria is going to use their chemical weapons or threaten the US or any other countries then there is always going to be a problem. And as Obama being our president and being elected due to the fact that he believes in peace I believe that it is a big step for Barrack to want to go in the war with Syria, due to the fact that he is known now for being given the Nobel peace prize. So my opinion doesn’t really madder because obama does what he wants to do be we the people , have no say.
AGREE Cadet N. A. Martin I agree with president Obama. I agree with him because I think what he is doing is right. If we bomb Syria it may cause even more chaos thus us breaking out in a war again. I though do not like the fact that they ended up killing innocent adults and children using chemicals. Though they agreed to stop with the chemicals and sign a form saying that they band it. So I see no point to bomb Syria if they agree to not use chemicals anymore. We should let them solve their own problems and not get involved unless it directly affects us.
Chance Abul I believe that we should go in and bomb Syria because, what they are doing is not right. To toy and end another person’s life is crucial and they have done it not just to one person but thousands of people. They treated other people like a test subject for some experiment they wanted to know. The situation however is critical because what of the survivors? What if there are some people still alive breathing and still in need of proper help? They MUST evacuate the civilians first and then proceed to the bombing. What’s more is that Syria has already agreed for the U.S. to bomb and destroy all their chemical warfare.
I disagree with Obama because I believe that not only is this another countries problem, but the fact that the people that are being gassed are revolutionists. They are going against the government by force, so the government is fighting back. Barack doesn't look at the fact that if per say Russia had gotten involved in our revolutionary war,we wouldn't be here today. By sending harrier strikes into that country we not only could be diluting a complete revolution and ending the possibility of a whole other chance of having another country. Right now saying that we send those strikes in we are helping the Taliban. The ones who caused one of the biggest tragedies in our country in recent history. With the allies that Syria has, bombing them would start an all out world war. Our allies would not stay with us because of the extreme amount of debt our country is in. Our economy is so bad, and our military personnel has downsized so much having another world war is going to be the downfall of this country. Russia is what is called a "power house" if they will use chemical warfare on the revolutionists they will not hesitate using it on enemy forces in war. You will see one of the biggest world wars this world will ever know and the death will be rising to the millions. Not only do we not need this war, but this world does not need this war.
Tylor White 9/12/13 JROTC Should we attack Syria? I disagree; I think that we should not attack Syria. My reasons why that I disagree is because if we attack Syria, Russia will want to fight us. Because Syria and Russia are like best friends. So in turn we well get attacked by Russia and other country’s that think that we should stay out of it. If we get attacked back then it is just going to start another world war, so then it would be world war 3. I do not want to go into another world war. The reason why I think Syria and Russia are best friends is because they are both communist countries. But I also do not think that Syria should have use chemical weapons on their own country. But I mostly think they should not attack.
Agree I think that President Obama has made the right call. He is not endangering our troops as much as could be while still trying to help out the Syrian public. While I do see how one would be concerned overstepping our boundaries, I would have made the same decision as he did, asking Congress to help make the final decision. I respect the President even more because of his reluctance to throw us into another war almost completely blind, not knowing what kind of other chemical warfare the Syrian government has. So overall, I do agree with President Obama's decision on the strike on Syria. ~Cadet Sanderson, 4th period.
Agree matt latham I agree that we should have an encounter with Seria because if we don't, then serian government will think that it is ok that they use harmful gases on their own people. This is not ok because it could turn into the Serian government will think its ok to use it on other people too. If we put a stop to it right now, than we take away their ability to gas their people along with others as well. The Russian government has asked Seria to hand over the gases but this could result in more harm to citizens that are defenseless from these types of gases. So I agree with president Obama about planning careful military strikes on Seria to stop them from further damage to their own people
I agree Adrian Gibson I feel that president Obama is correct in his course of action to have U.S forces on standby but also seek a peaceful means if possible. But the downside of the peaceful route also gives other countries like Iran the chance to exploit this problem making things worse not only for the Middle East and America. But in this case Russia is willing to help by offering to remove Syria’s chemical weapons from the country so U.S involvement will be unnecessary. Thus probably avoiding the chance of a war does anyone know for sure I am afraid not but president Obama is trying to work all possible angles before using military force. I don’t know what will happen in the future on this crisis but I am eager to learn more and see how the president reacts to the upcoming events.
Disagree Ali Brinkley In my opinion, I disagree with Obama. This country has several unsolved problems already that we need to focus our attention on, and stop ignoring them for other countries conflicts. Aside from the violent part of this problem, children, even adults, in the United States suffer every day that we never acknowledge but we want to go over to Syria and save those people when we can’t even save our own is completely oblivious to me. Don’t get me wrong, I like that he wants to save the innocent victims involved in all this but, we need to solve the problems we already face, in this country, instead of making new ones.
I agree that we should not act against Syria. We do not want to start a war while were trying to end wars in other countries. Syria decided to use chemical weapons on their people after other countries agreed not to use them. Syria`s chemical weapons are taking innocent people’s lives. Syria is trying to destroy certain rebellious groups with in the country according to the media. We should not take act because we are not the countries police men. If we have chemical warfare a lot of people would lose their lives. We do not want to start a war with them because if they come over to the United Stated with their chemical weapons they could take innocent people’s lives. President Barack H. Obama has worked with United Kingdom and France on a solution for chemical regulations throughout the world. He is also trying to work with China to ban these chemical weapons once. I agree we should not take action against Syria without other countries be involved.
The people who feel that we should not go to Syria, their main points are that we already have enough problems in the US, and also what happened when we got involved in Iraq, and Afghanistan. But, when the President drew the red line, if he doesn't follow through, no country will take him serious. Of Course, I don't want the US getting involved with another countries war, but I feel as if we have to now. I think that the Presidents decision to hold off on the meeting with congress was smart, We just give President Putin's plan a little time to develop. We still have to be careful, because President Putin isn't someone you can easily put your trust in. In conclusion, I feel that we should go to Syria, because not doing so, just makes America and our Commander in Chief look weak. Kayla Stephens
I agree I think President Barack Obama was right and we should do something about the Syrian government using chemical weapons against their own people. like he said ‘’if we let the Syrian government begin to use chemical weapons against their own people than other terrorists will begin to think that its ok to use chemical warfare and it will be easier for them to obtain these weapons ”. This is one of the main reasons I think we should get involved with the Syrian government and stop them from killing their own people with chemical weapons. I think the U.N. should come together and think of an easier way to stop them.
I agree I think President Barack Obama was right and we should do something about the Syrian government using chemical weapons against their own people. like he said ‘’if we let the Syrian government begin to use chemical weapons against their own people than other terrorists will begin to think that its ok to use chemical warfare and it will be easier for them to obtain these weapons ”. This is one of the main reasons I think we should get involved with the Syrian government and stop them from killing their own people with chemical weapons. I think the U.N. should come together and think of an easier way to stop them.
C/Major Ryan A. Peebles ROTC 4 I Agree with what Obama want to do about Syria. With congress in a vote to take action with a military strike, the president of Russian federation Vladimir Putin, has been in contact with the Syrian President Al Assad. In turn Assad has agreed to join the chemical weapons countries and surrender the weapons used against the rebels and civilians. With the support of Putin and the Russian government the look of a strike may not be needed. This in turn would take a lot of the pressure off of the United States. President Obama says that “we don’t need to be the world’s policeman.” I also agree with that. With the Marines and naval carriers being stationed in the Mediterranean Sea, they are said to be used as an enforcer after the strike if it happens. With that military assets are being used poorly, the weapons have already been taken and secured and within a month Syria will be giving a report to the chemical weapons countries to say “we do not have any more chemical weapons”. In short America has been the Superman for far too long. All because we cannot just stand and watch as a helpless country be hurt and crippled. So I agree to not take military action since there is nothing to respond to.
Disagree Ric.soules I disagree with him because if we do they might attack us back or we might lose more people. We aren't the worlds policeman we shouldn't let them leave every little problem in our hands they should take a problem together. If the UN help us we wouldnt lose as much as we do or lose a war if we attack Syria together we would destroy the chemical weapons. If UN helped us with Iraq and Afganistan we wouldn't of lost that maney marines but we sort of have Britian on our side.
In my own opinion Obama should not go into Syria. I do understand that we need to do something about the biochemical warfare, but it’s not like we can just do a military pin point strike without starting another war that America not only doesn’t want but cants afford. Yes I believe what they are doing is immoral and I am immensely distraught by the fact that the women, men, and children are dying, but what will happen when we send that strike is that they will either attack are troops with the biochemical gas or have their allies (AKA Russia) have war against us then a chain reaction of the allies and such will spread. If we do this now without thought or care about what will happen in the future, or to what it will cost us, it is highly illogical to carry it out. We would lose more than we are saving. So not only will the Syrians be dying but now our own Americans. Yes America is trying to be a mother country to the others but a mother cannot always protect her children. She cannot always discipline them right then and there because they will not always learn a listen right then and there. The mother will probably discipline the child over a long period of time. But it is hard to discipline a child you have only ever given a warning to so they will rebel when they get hit. There for since America did not act immediately on the fact they used it the first time that is why they kept using it and if we didn’t hold up the t law and basis we set then it is Americas fault that this has gotten carried out.
Personally, I agree with President Obama’s decision to take limited action on Syria. After seeing footage of tons of innocent people dying from poisonous gas, I felt really bad for all those people. What did they ever do? They were just living life like we did and all of a sudden, a surprise attack? I hope that if we have limited action on Syria that will teach them not to use chemical weapons to destroy the lives of the innocent. There is one concern I have, however. Yes we have trusted allies, but the question is would a little strike on a country cause a major war? I don’t want our country to be involved in a war once again.
Disagree C. Brough President Barrack Obama wants to end the problem in Syria because chemical weapons were used to kill thousand of innocent Syrians. I disagree with Obama because I don’t think we should get involved in another countries problem. I do feel sorry for the Syrians that were killed by the chemical weapons but we just got out of a war with Iraq and Afghanistan that lasted a decade. I understand that chemical weapons are not allowed to be used, but let Syria deal with its own problems and don’t let America or the Police of the World get involved. Obama made a lot of good points in his speech but it didn’t convince me at all.
9-14 Joshua Torres. No In my own personal opinion I think we should stay out of Syria. President Barack Obama says we should send a missile to teach the Syrian government a lesson. He stated that there would be no all out ground war, pretty much saying that they would just stand down. That is completely wrong the Syrians are waiting for our attack, so they can fire a counter attack back at us. This would lead to another war like in Iraq, and Afghanistan. This could lead us to having a World War 3, chemical warfare style. So in my opinion we stay out of it, instead of starting a whole new war separating families and taking our soldiers lives, maybe our own.
I agree with Obama that we should be involved with Syria. It’s an international law that forbids the use of chemical warfare. If we do nothing about it not only wills more innocent people die and terrorists could somehow get a hold of the weapons. Even though America shouldn’t be the world police especially after just getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan Syria problems could become ours. Though Syria has admitted they broke the rule. We will try diplomatic solution first though instead of just jumping in to violence. Though if that doesn’t work we will try to destroy the factories.
TJ Murrell. JROTC Blog I disagree with Obama, we should not attack Syria but use diplomacy. I say this because if we attack and it doesn’t work then we are next. The United States could be the next country to get attacked by Syria with chemical weapons. We shouldn’t attack them for that reason, However if we want to try and help our allies then we should do non-lethally. We should try to get some to talk to them or even a negotiation. We should try to keep it everyone calm so that nobody has to get hurt. We should protect our country with the least causalities as possible
As our commander in Chief, Barrack H. Obama started his speech regarding Syria’s civil war he spoke out to America about his opinion on what actions should take place. Obama said “America is not the world’s police men” and I 100% agree upon that. It is not our responsibility to join a civil war that has nothing to do with us. Obama’s main goal has been to take our soldiers out and away from war as much as possible and to take action on Syria, this would break his word. Many people here in the U.S. are tired or war and we all would like peace but of course it’s impossible for everything to be almost perfect.
Obama’s approach towards Syria was accurate to me because instead of trying to solve it in a violent manner, he is giving them a chance to hand over their weapons to keep the peace. He’s letting them take matters into their own hands and giving them a chance to plead their case. I respect the fact that he checked with Congress first, because it shows that he respects their options. Obama is hesitant to have our troops attack, but if Syria refuses to hand over weapons, then we must take a not-so-peaceful approach towards Syria to save the millions of people who could be horribly affected by their decisions. ~Cadet. Y Johnson
George bishop agree I think we need to get involved because it’s a humanitarian problem that is similar to what was happening to the Jews in WWII Germany it’s an atrocity win innocent people are affected by bad dictators. If they could do it for them self but they can’t they are too small in numbers to fight the army and nato and the UN aren’t getting with the program so we have to step up to get it done. If nothing is done surrounding country’s could fall in to fall to a big war and shod have ben dealt with a long time ago. Now its escalated to a big problem that were stepping up to the plate.
Agree McKenzy Worthington I think that Obama should attack Syria because, Syria will not stop gassing their people. Syria has been chemically bombing: children, women and men. It is a fog war, so it is really hard to tell how many people has died. That is terrible, we can’t even tell how many people have died, how do we know how many are left!? Obama says that he does not make wars, he tries to prevent wars. He also says that he will not put U.S. Military boots on Syria ground. So I believe that he is just going to bomb Syria for a few days just to say that he did something. What is the difference between Syria killing their own people or the U.S. bombing Syria? I still think that he is putting the U.S. as the world police, yet he just thinks that it is wrong against humanity. So he says the only way to stop Syria is to threaten them to stop killing innocent Children, women and men. The U.S. will attack Syria for attacking their own people because it is the only way to top Syria. It is against humanity to kill innocent people: children, men and women. So that is why I think that Obama should stop Syria.
Obama had 2 different arguments in his speech on the Syria situation. One being the United States should go in and fight back, which is what I agree with. One quote Obama said was “We are not the world’s policeman.”, and I do agree to that. I agree on the decision to respond to the attacking of Syria by Military Strike. It just doesn’t seem fair to me for these people to be responsible for gassing people to death which several victims in the conflict were testing positive for, and not receive any revenge or outcome from that. Obama said they could just destroy his weapons with international control, but the United States should fight back to the conflict with Syria.
Anderson Disagree I belive that if we attack Syria they will want to attack us and Russia will also want to attack us sence they are allies. I think we should just leave them alone so they can fight their civil war. This has happend before and we lost a lot of Americans and this will happen again if we attack Syria. We just got out of two wars with Iraq and Afghanistan we do not want to get into another with Syria especially if it might start another world war with America being the bully. I also think that North Korea might get involved even though they have not said anything. That is opinion.
I agree on the bombing of Syria. The reason why I agree is because when the bombing happen the whole country of Syria won’t be bombed. The only reason why those certain areas will be bombed is because Assad and his men are the only people who need to be stopped. President Obama said when Syria had been gassed with chemical weapons that there would be consequences. Innocent people even children have been killed with chemical weapons. President Obama's plan to bomb Syria may be threatening but could be lifesaving. I agree that Syria should be bombed because if we don’t then we lose credibility with the world. – Cadet.J Owens
disagree Jacori jack I don’t think that it would be best to go to Syria. I think this because if we do go then we would have to send more troops out. Then if we go then Syria’s alliance would help defend them. His goal is to have a targeted strike that avoids a start of a war. They may take that as a treat and want to retaliate and with chemical warfare they could treat us like the people in Syrian now. Like he said in his speech we don’t have to be the nation’s police and by getting into this he could put us in a war we didn't have to be in. So my option is to stay out before he puts us in a unnecessary war.
I agree that we are not the world’s police, but after seeing the devastation on August 21st it’s not a hard to see that actions must be taken to stop any further destruction. If the horrible sight of over 1000 men, women, and especially innocent children dying isn’t enough to spark the idea that it is time for action what is? I believe it’s no longer a choice of if we must act but when will we. The president has made a good choice in my opinion to try and do all peaceful mean first before trying the assault. It was also good to have the support of allies like Russia, France, the UK, and China so that Syria would not even try any military strikes. The idea of making Syria give up there chemical weapons is not to try and start anymore wars or put anymore blame on America but if we decide to turn the other cheek and let Syria go on with their attacks what makes us think they won’t get big headed and try an attack on any other countries. So as a global force for good America should put a stop to Syria by any means necessary. 1
Agree Dejha Nixon I do not believe that we should attack Syria. When it comes to their civil problems I do not think that we should get involved. We as a nation have too many problems by ourselves to try and help solve someone else’s. As Obama stated in his speech we are just getting our troops back from Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan and above all that, we have issues with the country as a whole. School’s need reconstruction and up-to-date text books, cities need help with rebuilding after natural disasters, people are dying because of gang violence. Instead of putting money towards helping countries that are having problems within themselves, we need to help us. Another big issue is that their civil problem should not involve us. If we keep helping civil problems people are going to start retaliating towards us. When they start retaliating how are we going to depend on countries to help us out when those same countries needed our help fighting the same people. I just don’t believe that America should get involved with civil problems in other countries.
Antonia Robinson ROTC lll 9/15/13 I do not think that the we should attack Syria. The reason why I think this because it is first going to cost a tromendis amount of money because of the cruisers their going to be using, and that money alone could help with some of the debt we owe. I understand that they have did some horrible things which caused some highly devastation on augist first. I think that they should think of some other way to stop Syria, other than to start a civil war. Because I believe if this happens Israel will get involved and something very horrible might happen. To be honest im realy not sure what might happens if this goes on but I do hope Syria stops what they are doing. As I conclude I would like to say that we shouldn’t go to war with Syria for many reason, but in time stop them in their tracks from doing the horrible things they are doing.
I agree, but I also have to ( in my right mind) disagree. I am going to admit that the United States of America is not as strong and as capable as many Americans think we are. Trying to recover from ten long years of war after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, that sent american soldiers into Iraq and Afghanistan to hunt down the leader of Al Queda. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan tore apart countries, communities and most of all families. The only reason we have that justifies the United States using the military upon Syrian military and surrounding areas, is that the Assad administration used banned chemical weaponry on eleven neighborhoods killing more civilians than estimated terrorist personnel. Though the United States, the United Kingdom, and France agree that Syria is deserving of punishment. It's Russian and Chinese counterparts say that Syria should have a chance to redeem itself, and the government of Syria has agreed to hand over the weapons that they used. This attempt has given the Assad Administration the sympathy of the Chinese republic and the Russian Federation. If the United States and the United Kingdom were to strike against Syria, with France included by assisting or conducting their own missle strike, could cause the Third world war. Which we dont need considering that we have specialized Nuclear Missles in all of the top countries, world war three could just mean the end of the world as we know it. So I agree but I also strongly disagree. Cadet Horsley
McGraw I agree with Obama because the Syrian government is doing something wrong and torturing innocent people with these gasses and if we go in and help then it will hopefully stop, but if we don't go in then it will continue to be used and may affect other countries including ours. I think going in to Syria will show other countries that we are not messing around when we say to stop and make an agreement with the whole world to not use these very harmful weapons and on top of that it is a very painful thing to go through when they are used on people. I believe we should go in and help these innocent people who aren’t even a part of this and get it over with and make sure they are going to stop using such a harmful thing. If I lived in Syria and this was happening to me I would want help and this is the right thing to do so I say yes we need to go help.
AS3 Cadet Stevens I disagree with Obamas stance on any actions towards Syria. The biggest reason: its none of our business. These chemical weapons weren't launched directly at an U.S targets, or any of our allies. So why butt into this problem? Just because chemical weapons were banned by 98% of the worlds population, like Obama stated numerous times, doesn't mean WE have to be the ones to go in and fix it. There are other countries/ nations in the U.N that can take care of it. Israel is more then capable of taking care of coordinate air strikes if that be the case, and diplomatically, Russia is working on it, who also happens to be one of Syrias allies who should be able to nudge them in the right direction to fixing their decisions. We don't need to be the police force in this situation. Syria has no capability in harming the U.S so this should not be an issue to us. We have problems of our own that need to be fixed. Not some other country that we are barely affiliated with.
Disagree - B.Prater 7:26 pm In my opinion I disagree on the whole Syria thing. Yes it was sad thing that happen and r.i.p to the adults and children that lost their lives but honestly I think America need to stay out of it because it’s bad enough that were pretty much left with the mess that wasn’t cause by us and Obama should not leave it up to congress to make the decision on whether we me or not. We need to focus on the home base as much as we can and probably put in as lil of help as we could just to protect us and allies as a country.
Asha Stewart In my opinion, I believe we should not take action against Syria. American’s are not the World Wide Police. Even though the Syrian government did break treaty, if we do choose to punish them it could end up starting WWIII. With Russia being a very strong ally to Syria, I’m quite sure the effects of sending in any type of military would be devastating. Although looking at this issue in another light, if we don’t take action things could spiral out of control. Perhaps some sort of punishment, other than going in all ‘gung-hoe’, could be established. Anything except where more people have to die would suffice. Perhaps the Syrian government having to fix damages done would be a small way to ask for forgiveness. I know that to a lot of people this will never be enough in their eyes to repay their debt, but in a fair world no one is happy.
I think that something needs to be done about these chemical weapons in Syria. If the U.S. as bad as it is now just decides to stay out of the Syrian issue, what message is that going to deliver to other countries? The message that the other countries will get is that the U.S. is weak and cowardly. If no one wants to do anything about these chemical weapons, other countries are more than likely going to decide to use chemical weapons because they will now know that the U.S. will stay out of their affairs. The other reason for why I think this problem needs to be dealt with is because innocent lives are being counted among the death toll. If nothing is done about these weapons, the population of Syria could very well decrease to the point of Syria's population almost being wiped out. Not only that, but the chemicals could become so severe that the land itself could become an uninhabitable wasteland. Plants will die, animals will die, everything will die.
I do not believe we should use Military action against Syria. I understand that innocents were killed, and the way they killed them was illegal, but you don't solve problems by immediately threatening Military action, unless it's a direct threat to us as a country, or it negatively affects our way of life. Diplomatic solutions are the most effective, and it ensures that no more lives will be lost over a pointless argument. Another reason why I think it's a bad idea, is because we're doing so against the UN's approval. We are part of the UN, and to disregard the rules is ignorant and shows we don't care. Russia is also a big ally of Syria, military action would worsen the already bad tensions between the two countries. Cadet Silver, 1st Period
Agree N.Dillahunt I agree with President Obama because if we start to attack them, we would have to start killing innocent people then that would look bad on us. Money will be a big problem because were going to start spending a lot of it sending troop to Syria with guns and ammo and all that other stuff they need. Were already indebt why do we need to make it worse? Some Countries are going to get mad at use and won’t send anything to us. I say do not attack Syria because that’s going to make more problem than the united states already have.
My personal opinion is that I think Obama was making the right choice with the Syria situation, I think what he is doing is right. Even just sending out a little bit of troops out there to see what going on, how they can fix it and what they can do to help. Because think about it, you have someone out there killing people and families and babies dying in there parents arms running and screaming for help be gassed by chemical weapons! As I went to work this week I talked to a few marines about this situation some of them agree and some disagree with it but no matter what they say if they have to go in to war then it will be a fight to fight for our country not just us but saving the life’s of poor innocent people in Syria!
I think president Obama is doing the right thing by trying to stop Syria from using chemical weapons. If Syria is a threatening the US or any other countries then we need to stop them right now before anything bad really happens. I feel that Syria needs to stop with taking innocent peoples lives by using chemical weapons, But by bombing Syria even though they agreed to stop using chemical weapons, there's no point to it anymore Cadet N.Green
Chris Panella I don’t agree I do not agree with the President’s Address on Syria. I don’t think we should send in troops. I feel that we should use diplomats to make them stop. If they don’t then do worry as long as they aren’t threatening the United States. In the other hand what if it wasn’t the Syrian government. Like President Obama said they don’t have any hard evidence saying that it was the Syrian government. I don’t think he should send in troops unless the Syrian government threatens the United States. Then I will agree to him sending in troops. Until then, it is a no for me.
Shaylynn Norrell I agree with Obama but then again I don’t. I agree that we shouldn’t bomb Syria because that would most likely start a war. And with our men still in recovery, I don’t think that would turn out to well for us at the moment. Although they signed a form banding them from using the gases, I believe once they have done it, they will do it again. And signing a paper does not justify all the people that were killed after what seemed like and “experiment” took place. Even though I don’t want a war to break out I still think we should do something as to justify all the people and children that were killed that day.
Please tell me what this sounds like to you .... Kroshus I greatly hate jumping into all these debates without proper knowledge or with biased opinions, it makes me feel like a dirty politic, but here it goes. Yes I do believe something should be done about Syria, but I don't think we should be the ones to do it. Yes the united States is great, but how are we supposed to fix other countries when we can't help ourselves, yeah we're not gassing out civilians, but we should fix ourselves before we go out reaching for another possible war. As it's apparently been spread across the news, Russia is supposedly taking the weapons to dispose of them, which is a way better way then launching attacks and basically declaring another war. I know we mean well, but sometimes the more covert way is greater than going in guns-a-blazing. Not to mention us stepping in is going to make us that much of a bigger target, and they could turn their attention to us instead of their rebels...if we put people on the ground over there, what's stopping the Syrian's from simply gassing our troops, thus murdering our own. There has got to be a simpler way to do it then launching an attack, whether is be drones, troops or missiles. My issue is though, the president has supposedly been going back and forth on his word. Saying he drew a red line at some point but now he's acting like it didn't happen and is just stepping back saying now if they cross this new line he'll go forward. If you're going to promise to take action, you don't step down when it comes time to. There was also a point where he said he didn't need the support of congress to order an attack on Syria, but now he is choosing to have them vote anyways. I wish he would make a discussion and stick to it.
Grady Hyatt I agree with the president for several reasons. One being that, should America launch a strike on Syria, two being America won’t just be fine after the strike because Syria would retaliate and then America would actually have to get involved in another war as opposed to just launching a strike and we would not have troops go into Syria like the president said. Another reason is that Russia would also side with Syria, should we go to war or launch a strike and since Russia has a very well trained and well armed army the war would be very bloody and lots of people would die. My last reason on why America should not get involved is that Russia is also trying to do something about the chemical weapons already so I think we should trust Russia and take away the chemical weapons. Although people are dying in Syria and they need help, we do not need to get involved for it wouldn’t be politically good for America.
Obama brings good points to defend both sides of this debate but he has convinced me that the correct action to take, in terms of sending a message to the dictators of the world. It is time to shut Syria down. Yes people have asked why does America have to be the world's piece keepers and I reply to them because no one else will. The use of chemical weapons has been banned and for a good reason. Obama said that America has set the guide lines and now it is time for America to enforce them. Even if Syria decides to join the Chemical Weapons Convention they still would not have learned a lesson that every dictator in this world needs to learn. That lesson being not to use chemical weapons that kill innocent people. The time is now to put this fire out not only in Syria but in the rest of the world.
9-15-13 Dominae Smith I believe that we should not go to Syria. We always helping different nations with wars and other problems and we end up getting mixed in the middle of it. Well think we should stay here in order to keep from getting mixed up in what could possibly end up being another war. I don’t mind America helping other countries with problems but we could be stepping on some thin ice. Don’t get me wrong though, what happened in Syria was a horrible thing. That should never happen again and whoever did it needs to be punished for it. I just believe we should stay here just to be safe
I personally believe that president Obama does not need to invest valuable time, money, and military resources on this issue. The syrian government should handle this issue by themselves. If that is not possible, than a different nation should step in. We as a nation do not have the economic stability to go to war with another country. We are just now ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military has been exhausted over the past ten years. If president Obama decides to send troops to Syria, it will only send our nation in to further turmoil. If he wants to be the world's police than he needs to solve the problems we have in our own country.
I personally agree with Obama to send an air strike to Syria. I believe we should do more than just send an air strike. They have been using chemical weapons even though Syria was one of the many countries that signed the treaty to not use chemical weapons. They went from a simple warfare of using guns to now using chemicals. They have killed many children and innocent civilians in the process. We have been given evidence from Syria that they are using those weapons. They decided to take the weapons and wipe out a total of eleven neighborhoods that they have been in battle with. It would not be long before they would decide to make it more than just a civil war. If they are going to this extent to win a simple civil war, who knows what measures they would take to go against another country. There is no possible way of actually predicting that to happen, but if there is a chance to stop it then we should take that chance and use it. Even though we should not be the first to go since there are countries closer, but we are the most relied country and we make sure to get things done. That is why I agree.
The United States of America should not move into Syria. United States of America already has enough problems by itself. So by us going over there to try to strip them from chemical weapons would probably create more problems for the United States of America. I'm not saying it's going to end up like Afghanistan or Iraq.But any type of problem threatening the USA would probably be a big concern. I'm not sure if Syria would be a big threat, but any threat should not be taken lightly. Of course what Syria did was wrong but the U.S cannot be the worlds superhero country and get involved into everything. I think we should not take extreme action on Syria. I do feel bad for the people and families losing loved ones because of the situation. Cadet McMullen
I don't think what Obama has planned is the right thing to do with syria. With the way the economy is and all the hate, crime, racsim, just everything going on in the world right now is a big blur. We loose troops daily. They are risking their lives for thousands of others. Do they have to? No they don't, not at all. But that is the lifestyle and job/career they chose and they are living up too it. Our troops have enough too worry about, remember, and do right now as it is.. dealing with Obamas stupidity shouldn't have to be one of them. I honestly think if we go with this Syria thing, that it will carry us into another war, but a lot worse and possibly another terriost attack. Obama shouldn't send our troops over there to do damage. I'm not racsist, but we were better off without Obama and his input. People dislike our president. He doesn't make the right choices for the United States says some American citizens. Everyone has there own believe and I agree that everyone should have a chance to speak there own opinion. I do not think that it is a good idea to go with this at all. We have a 50/50 % chance of failure, getting attacked, or truely anything could go wrong. Obama should of put more thought, or came up with a better reason for what he has caused America to be put through. Also our troops. I believe that Obama should put his self in other shoes and look at it from other point of views other then his own.
Watching the segment of President Obama’s speech, I have come to the conclusion that I strongly disagree with being involved in Syria’s civil war. I feel that it would not be very smart going into Syria with knowing that America has its own difficulties at this time to include our economy and a divided country ourselves. Helping them would be a mistake by putting more American soldiers’ lives at stake. We, the United States are already in a war in Afghanistan and recovering from the Iraq war. Why must we get involved in THEIR civil war? The United States should not be the voice of the United Nations. Looking back to when the USA was in the civil war, no country helped us. We were on our own. Though I do not agree with the chemical use on the people in Syria but even knowing, we should let them fight it out like all the countries did with us. Look where we are now, one of the top countries in the world. Also listening to Obama’s speech, he mentioned we will not put one US boot on the Syria ground till the people of US figure out what we shall do as a country. This means supporting the decisions of the government. Even though President Obama has told the American people we are undecided, the troops already have their marching orders. Samantha Mumford JROTC, 1st period
Agree C/SrA Baines I agree that something should be done about the Syrian government's chemical weapon use. The reasons that they attempt to use do not justify the fact that they broke international law. I feel that like any other form of criminal, Syria should be punished for their actions. A planned, concentrated, air strike would be within our means as one of the most powerful countries. Not only would it serve as a reminder to tyrants that you can't break internationals sanctions without repercussions, but it would prevent any future attacks from the Syrian government on their people. As long as the strike is precise and powerful, the message will be sent and many lives will be saved.
I think something should be done about Syria because it is proven once one country disobey an international law it opens a door for others to do the same, and we cant have that and i actually saw some of the videos with my mom over the weekend and what i saw was very disgraceful. So I say what kind of nation would we be if we dont take action and just watched as thousands of more people died, I also agree with Obama wanting congress on he side before taking action because with congress on his side it would more as a more justable reason to actually take action, also my brother is a member of the armed forces and he actually wants to go take action over in Syria too and hes one of the ones fighting. But with my beliefs we would not be a true nation under God when we see those people in trouble and being killed and not do a thing about it
After watching the mini segment with the President I disagree with what President Obama is saying about sending troops into Syria. I disagree because if sending them to Syria and to drop a bomb the Syrians are going to think well they just destroyed us which is going to give them the mind set that they need to retaliate which is going to start a war. If they do decide to retaliate they are going to most likely drop nuclear bombs that can cause massive destruction. At that thought we as America is already in war with Afghanistan and also we are just recovering with the war from Iraq if sending these troops to Syria there will be a war started which would be putting more soldiers at danger.
C/McGuire I do not agree with President Obama on his plan to get involved in Syria. It is not our war so why should we do anything about it. If we do then that will just start another war like we had in Iraq a few years back. There is no need for us to put troop’s life in danger in a war that does not involve us. I say, let them solve their problems themselves. Once they are a threat to us then we can get involved but until then we should worry about ourselves and stop being the world’s police.
Whole Group Activity: The teacher will create a chart on the board with three categories: personal, school, and physical. Discuss how the students’ obstacles fit into these categories. Fill in the chart with a selection of students’ obstacles.
Small Group/Individual Activity: Students will move into groups of four. Each group will be given a copy of Joseph J. Foss' profile. Students will list several examples where Joseph Foss faced obstacles, such as age, the enemy, and loss of planes.
Whole Group Activity: Students will share the information that they gathered from the profile. Students will add more examples to their lists.
Homework: Students will write an essay on the following prompt: Use evidence from the profile or examples from your list to support Foss’ persistence and perseverance. How does this relate/connect to you? Give your own examples. (250 words)
58 comments:
I personally believe that we should find a way to deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons, even though it is not our war. President Obama said “We cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force,” and I know that with the NATO and the UN all awaiting for the US’ response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, which is a violation of the CWC, which was kind of like a treaty made to eliminate the use of chemical weapons in any kind of warfare, making a decision would be hard. President Obama has asked Congress to hold off on voting whether or not to attack Syria, because Russia, Syria’s ally, has decided to try to convince Syrian officials to put their their chemical weapons under international control, and now we are just awaiting a response from Syria. Cadet Smith, Andre
Agree
L.Spicer
I agree with the president's decision due to the fact that If Syria is going to use their chemical weapons or threaten the US or any other countries then there is always going to be a problem. And as Obama being our president and being elected due to the fact that he believes in peace I believe that it is a big step for Barrack to want to go in the war with Syria, due to the fact that he is known now for being given the Nobel peace prize. So my opinion doesn’t really madder because obama does what he wants to do be we the people , have no say.
AGREE
Cadet N. A. Martin
I agree with president Obama. I agree with him because I think what he is doing is right. If we bomb Syria it may cause even more chaos thus us breaking out in a war again. I though do not like the fact that they ended up killing innocent adults and children using chemicals. Though they agreed to stop with the chemicals and sign a form saying that they band it. So I see no point to bomb Syria if they agree to not use chemicals anymore. We should let them solve their own problems and not get involved unless it directly affects us.
Chance Abul
I believe that we should go in and bomb Syria because, what they are doing is not right. To toy and end another person’s life is crucial and they have done it not just to one person but thousands of people. They treated other people like a test subject for some experiment they wanted to know. The situation however is critical because what of the survivors? What if there are some people still alive breathing and still in need of proper help? They MUST evacuate the civilians first and then proceed to the bombing. What’s more is that Syria has already agreed for the U.S. to bomb and destroy all their chemical warfare.
Disagree
WHITT
I disagree with Obama because I believe that not only is this another countries problem, but the fact that the people that are being gassed are revolutionists. They are going against the government by force, so the government is fighting back. Barack doesn't look at the fact that if per say Russia had gotten involved in our revolutionary war,we wouldn't be here today. By sending harrier strikes into that country we not only could be diluting a complete revolution and ending the possibility of a whole other chance of having another country. Right now saying that we send those strikes in we are helping the Taliban. The ones who caused one of the biggest tragedies in our country in recent history. With the allies that Syria has, bombing them would start an all out world war. Our allies would not stay with us because of the extreme amount of debt our country is in. Our economy is so bad, and our military personnel has downsized so much having another world war is going to be the downfall of this country. Russia is what is called a "power house" if they will use chemical warfare on the revolutionists they will not hesitate using it on enemy forces in war. You will see one of the biggest world wars this world will ever know and the death will be rising to the millions. Not only do we not need this war, but this world does not need this war.
Tylor White
9/12/13
JROTC
Should we attack Syria?
I disagree; I think that we should not attack Syria. My reasons why that I disagree is because if we attack Syria, Russia will want to fight us. Because Syria and Russia are like best friends. So in turn we well get attacked by Russia and other country’s that think that we should stay out of it. If we get attacked back then it is just going to start another world war, so then it would be world war 3. I do not want to go into another world war. The reason why I think Syria and Russia are best friends is because they are both communist countries. But I also do not think that Syria should have use chemical weapons on their own country. But I mostly think they should not attack.
Agree
I think that President Obama has made the right call. He is not endangering our troops as much as could be while still trying to help out the Syrian public. While I do see how one would be concerned overstepping our boundaries, I would have made the same decision as he did, asking Congress to help make the final decision. I respect the President even more because of his reluctance to throw us into another war almost completely blind, not knowing what kind of other chemical warfare the Syrian government has. So overall, I do agree with President Obama's decision on the strike on Syria.
~Cadet Sanderson, 4th period.
Agree
matt latham
I agree that we should have an encounter with Seria because if we don't, then serian government will think that it is ok that they use harmful gases on their own people. This is not ok because it could turn into the Serian government will think its ok to use it on other people too. If we put a stop to it right now, than we take away their ability to gas their people along with others as well. The Russian government has asked Seria to hand over the gases but this could result in more harm to citizens that are defenseless from these types of gases. So I agree with president Obama about planning careful military strikes on Seria to stop them from further damage to their own people
I agree
Adrian Gibson
I feel that president Obama is correct in his course of action to have U.S forces on standby but also seek a peaceful means if possible. But the downside of the peaceful route also gives other countries like Iran the chance to exploit this problem making things worse not only for the Middle East and America. But in this case Russia is willing to help by offering to remove Syria’s chemical weapons from the country so U.S involvement will be unnecessary. Thus probably avoiding the chance of a war does anyone know for sure I am afraid not but president Obama is trying to work all possible angles before using military force. I don’t know what will happen in the future on this crisis but I am eager to learn more and see how the president reacts to the upcoming events.
Disagree
Ali Brinkley
In my opinion, I disagree with Obama. This country has several unsolved problems already that we need to focus our attention on, and stop ignoring them for other countries conflicts. Aside from the violent part of this problem, children, even adults, in the United States suffer every day that we never acknowledge but we want to go over to Syria and save those people when we can’t even save our own is completely oblivious to me. Don’t get me wrong, I like that he wants to save the innocent victims involved in all this but, we need to solve the problems we already face, in this country, instead of making new ones.
Chad Miller Last Corrections
Syria
I agree that we should not act against Syria. We do not want to start a war while were trying to end wars in other countries. Syria decided to use chemical weapons on their people after other countries agreed not to use them. Syria`s chemical weapons are taking innocent people’s lives. Syria is trying to destroy certain rebellious groups with in the country according to the media. We should not take act because we are not the countries police men. If we have chemical warfare a lot of people would lose their lives. We do not want to start a war with them because if they come over to the United Stated with their chemical weapons they could take innocent people’s lives. President Barack H. Obama has worked with United Kingdom and France on a solution for chemical regulations throughout the world. He is also trying to work with China to ban these chemical weapons once. I agree we should not take action against Syria without other countries be involved.
Agree
The people who feel that we should not go to Syria, their main points are that we already have enough problems in the US, and also what happened when we got involved in Iraq, and Afghanistan. But, when the President drew the red line, if he doesn't follow through, no country will take him serious. Of Course, I don't want the US getting involved with another countries war, but I feel as if we have to now. I think that the Presidents decision to hold off on the meeting with congress was smart, We just give President Putin's plan a little time to develop. We still have to be careful, because President Putin isn't someone you can easily put your trust in. In conclusion, I feel that we should go to Syria, because not doing so, just makes America and our Commander in Chief look weak.
Kayla Stephens
I agree
I think President Barack Obama was right and we should do something about the Syrian government using chemical weapons against their own people. like he said ‘’if we let the Syrian government begin to use chemical weapons against their own people than other terrorists will begin to think that its ok to use chemical warfare and it will be easier for them to obtain these weapons ”. This is one of the main reasons I think we should get involved with the Syrian government and stop them from killing their own people with chemical weapons. I think the U.N. should come together and think of an easier way to stop them.
I agree
I think President Barack Obama was right and we should do something about the Syrian government using chemical weapons against their own people. like he said ‘’if we let the Syrian government begin to use chemical weapons against their own people than other terrorists will begin to think that its ok to use chemical warfare and it will be easier for them to obtain these weapons ”. This is one of the main reasons I think we should get involved with the Syrian government and stop them from killing their own people with chemical weapons. I think the U.N. should come together and think of an easier way to stop them.
C/Major Ryan A. Peebles
ROTC 4
I Agree with what Obama want to do about Syria. With congress in a vote to take action with a military strike, the president of Russian federation Vladimir Putin, has been in contact with the Syrian President Al Assad. In turn Assad has agreed to join the chemical weapons countries and surrender the weapons used against the rebels and civilians. With the support of Putin and the Russian government the look of a strike may not be needed. This in turn would take a lot of the pressure off of the United States.
President Obama says that “we don’t need to be the world’s policeman.” I also agree with that. With the Marines and naval carriers being stationed in the Mediterranean Sea, they are said to be used as an enforcer after the strike if it happens. With that military assets are being used poorly, the weapons have already been taken and secured and within a month Syria will be giving a report to the chemical weapons countries to say “we do not have any more chemical weapons”.
In short America has been the Superman for far too long. All because we cannot just stand and watch as a helpless country be hurt and crippled. So I agree to not take military action since there is nothing to respond to.
Disagree
Ric.soules
I disagree with him because if we do they might attack us back or we might lose more people. We aren't the worlds policeman we shouldn't let them leave every little problem in our hands they should take a problem together. If the UN help us we wouldnt lose as much as we do or lose a war if we attack Syria together we would destroy the chemical weapons. If UN helped us with Iraq and Afganistan we wouldn't of lost that maney marines but we sort of have Britian on our side.
Madison Bass disagree
In my own opinion Obama should not go into Syria. I do understand that we need to do something about the biochemical warfare, but it’s not like we can just do a military pin point strike without starting another war that America not only doesn’t want but cants afford. Yes I believe what they are doing is immoral and I am immensely distraught by the fact that the women, men, and children are dying, but what will happen when we send that strike is that they will either attack are troops with the biochemical gas or have their allies (AKA Russia) have war against us then a chain reaction of the allies and such will spread. If we do this now without thought or care about what will happen in the future, or to what it will cost us, it is highly illogical to carry it out. We would lose more than we are saving. So not only will the Syrians be dying but now our own Americans. Yes America is trying to be a mother country to the others but a mother cannot always protect her children. She cannot always discipline them right then and there because they will not always learn a listen right then and there. The mother will probably discipline the child over a long period of time. But it is hard to discipline a child you have only ever given a warning to so they will rebel when they get hit. There for since America did not act immediately on the fact they used it the first time that is why they kept using it and if we didn’t hold up the t law and basis we set then it is Americas fault that this has gotten carried out.
C/2nd Lt. Asuncion
September 13, 2013
JROTC III
Personally, I agree with President Obama’s decision to take limited action on Syria. After seeing footage of tons of innocent people dying from poisonous gas, I felt really bad for all those people. What did they ever do? They were just living life like we did and all of a sudden, a surprise attack? I hope that if we have limited action on Syria that will teach them not to use chemical weapons to destroy the lives of the innocent. There is one concern I have, however. Yes we have trusted allies, but the question is would a little strike on a country cause a major war? I don’t want our country to be involved in a war once again.
Disagree
C. Brough
President Barrack Obama wants to end the problem in Syria because chemical weapons were used to kill thousand of innocent Syrians. I disagree with Obama because I don’t think we should get involved in another countries problem. I do feel sorry for the Syrians that were killed by the chemical weapons but we just got out of a war with Iraq and Afghanistan that lasted a decade. I understand that chemical weapons are not allowed to be used, but let Syria deal with its own problems and don’t let America or the Police of the World get involved. Obama made a lot of good points in his speech but it didn’t convince me at all.
9-14
Joshua Torres. No
In my own personal opinion I think we should stay out of Syria. President Barack Obama says we should send a missile to teach the Syrian government a lesson. He stated that there would be no all out ground war, pretty much saying that they would just stand down. That is completely wrong the Syrians are waiting for our attack, so they can fire a counter attack back at us. This would lead to another war like in Iraq, and Afghanistan. This could lead us to having a World War 3, chemical warfare style. So in my opinion we stay out of it, instead of starting a whole new war separating families and taking our soldiers lives, maybe our own.
Agree
Kevin Phillips
I agree with Obama that we should be involved with Syria. It’s an international law that forbids the use of chemical warfare. If we do nothing about it not only wills more innocent people die and terrorists could somehow get a hold of the weapons. Even though America shouldn’t be the world police especially after just getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan Syria problems could become ours. Though Syria has admitted they broke the rule. We will try diplomatic solution first though instead of just jumping in to violence. Though if that doesn’t work we will try to destroy the factories.
TJ Murrell. JROTC Blog
I disagree with Obama, we should not attack Syria but use diplomacy. I say this because if we attack and it doesn’t work then we are next. The United States could be the next country to get attacked by Syria with chemical weapons. We shouldn’t attack them for that reason, However if we want to try and help our allies then we should do non-lethally. We should try to get some to talk to them or even a negotiation. We should try to keep it everyone calm so that nobody has to get hurt. We should protect our country with the least causalities as possible
Cadet Peters, Nadeane
As our commander in Chief, Barrack H. Obama started his speech regarding Syria’s civil war he spoke out to America about his opinion on what actions should take place. Obama said “America is not the world’s police men” and I 100% agree upon that. It is not our responsibility to join a civil war that has nothing to do with us. Obama’s main goal has been to take our soldiers out and away from war as much as possible and to take action on Syria, this would break his word. Many people here in the U.S. are tired or war and we all would like peace but of course it’s impossible for everything to be almost perfect.
Obama and Syria
Obama’s approach towards Syria was accurate to me because instead of trying to solve it in a violent manner, he is giving them a chance to hand over their weapons to keep the peace. He’s letting them take matters into their own hands and giving them a chance to plead their case. I respect the fact that he checked with Congress first, because it shows that he respects their options. Obama is hesitant to have our troops attack, but if Syria refuses to hand over weapons, then we must take a not-so-peaceful approach towards Syria to save the millions of people who could be horribly affected by their decisions.
~Cadet. Y Johnson
George bishop
agree
I think we need to get involved because it’s a humanitarian problem that is similar to what was happening to the Jews in WWII Germany it’s an atrocity win innocent people are affected by bad dictators. If they could do it for them self but they can’t they are too small in numbers to fight the army and nato and the UN aren’t getting with the program so we have to step up to get it done. If nothing is done surrounding country’s could fall in to fall to a big war and shod have ben dealt with a long time ago. Now its escalated to a big problem that were stepping up to the plate.
Agree
McKenzy Worthington
I think that Obama should attack Syria because, Syria will not stop gassing their people. Syria has been chemically bombing: children, women and men. It is a fog war, so it is really hard to tell how many people has died. That is terrible, we can’t even tell how many people have died, how do we know how many are left!? Obama says that he does not make wars, he tries to prevent wars. He also says that he will not put U.S. Military boots on Syria ground. So I believe that he is just going to bomb Syria for a few days just to say that he did something. What is the difference between Syria killing their own people or the U.S. bombing Syria? I still think that he is putting the U.S. as the world police, yet he just thinks that it is wrong against humanity. So he says the only way to stop Syria is to threaten them to stop killing innocent Children, women and men. The U.S. will attack Syria for attacking their own people because it is the only way to top Syria. It is against humanity to kill innocent people: children, men and women. So that is why I think that Obama should stop Syria.
Auzhane Ellis – Agree
Obama had 2 different arguments in his speech on the Syria situation. One being the United States should go in and fight back, which is what I agree with. One quote Obama said was “We are not the world’s policeman.”, and I do agree to that. I agree on the decision to respond to the attacking of Syria by Military Strike. It just doesn’t seem fair to me for these people to be responsible for gassing people to death which several victims in the conflict were testing positive for, and not receive any revenge or outcome from that. Obama said they could just destroy his weapons with international control, but the United States should fight back to the conflict with Syria.
Anderson
Disagree
I belive that if we attack Syria they will want to attack us and Russia will also want to attack us sence they are allies. I think we should just leave them alone so they can fight their civil war. This has happend before and we lost a lot of Americans and this will happen again if we attack Syria. We just got out of two wars with Iraq and Afghanistan we do not want to get into another with Syria especially if it might start another world war with America being the bully. I also think that North Korea might get involved even though they have not said anything. That is opinion.
I agree on the bombing of Syria. The reason why I agree is because when the bombing happen the whole country of Syria won’t be bombed. The only reason why those certain areas will be bombed is because Assad and his men are the only people who need to be stopped. President Obama said when Syria had been gassed with chemical weapons that there would be consequences. Innocent people even children have been killed with chemical weapons. President Obama's plan to bomb Syria may be threatening but could be lifesaving. I agree that Syria should be bombed because if we don’t then we lose credibility with the world. – Cadet.J Owens
disagree
Jacori jack
I don’t think that it would be best to go to Syria. I think this because if we do go then we would have to send more troops out. Then if we go then Syria’s alliance would help defend them. His goal is to have a targeted strike that avoids a start of a war. They may take that as a treat and want to retaliate and with chemical warfare they could treat us like the people in Syrian now. Like he said in his speech we don’t have to be the nation’s police and by getting into this he could put us in a war we didn't have to be in. So my option is to stay out before he puts us in a unnecessary war.
C/Bethea Agree
I agree that we are not the world’s police, but after seeing the devastation on August 21st it’s not a hard to see that actions must be taken to stop any further destruction. If the horrible sight of over 1000 men, women, and especially innocent children dying isn’t enough to spark the idea that it is time for action what is? I believe it’s no longer a choice of if we must act but when will we. The president has made a good choice in my opinion to try and do all peaceful mean first before trying the assault. It was also good to have the support of allies like Russia, France, the UK, and China so that Syria would not even try any military strikes. The idea of making Syria give up there chemical weapons is not to try and start anymore wars or put anymore blame on America but if we decide to turn the other cheek and let Syria go on with their attacks what makes us think they won’t get big headed and try an attack on any other countries. So as a global force for good America should put a stop to Syria by any means necessary. 1
Agree
Dejha Nixon
I do not believe that we should attack Syria. When it comes to their civil problems I do not think that we should get involved. We as a nation have too many problems by ourselves to try and help solve someone else’s. As Obama stated in his speech we are just getting our troops back from Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan and above all that, we have issues with the country as a whole. School’s need reconstruction and up-to-date text books, cities need help with rebuilding after natural disasters, people are dying because of gang violence. Instead of putting money towards helping countries that are having problems within themselves, we need to help us.
Another big issue is that their civil problem should not involve us. If we keep helping civil problems people are going to start retaliating towards us. When they start retaliating how are we going to depend on countries to help us out when those same countries needed our help fighting the same people. I just don’t believe that America should get involved with civil problems in other countries.
Antonia Robinson
ROTC lll
9/15/13
I do not think that the we should attack Syria. The reason why I think this because it is first going to cost a tromendis amount of money because of the cruisers their going to be using, and that money alone could help with some of the debt we owe. I understand that they have did some horrible things which caused some highly devastation on augist first. I think that they should think of some other way to stop Syria, other than to start a civil war. Because I believe if this happens Israel will get involved and something very horrible might happen. To be honest im realy not sure what might happens if this goes on but I do hope Syria stops what they are doing. As I conclude I would like to say that we shouldn’t go to war with Syria for many reason, but in time stop them in their tracks from doing the horrible things they are doing.
I agree, but I also have to ( in my right mind) disagree.
I am going to admit that the United States of America is not as strong and as capable as many Americans think we are. Trying to recover from ten long years of war after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, that sent american soldiers into Iraq and Afghanistan to hunt down the leader of Al Queda. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan tore apart countries, communities and most of all families. The only reason we have that justifies the United States using the military upon Syrian military and surrounding areas, is that the Assad administration used banned chemical weaponry on eleven neighborhoods killing more civilians than estimated terrorist personnel. Though the United States, the United Kingdom, and France agree that Syria is deserving of punishment. It's Russian and Chinese counterparts say that Syria should have a chance to redeem itself, and the government of Syria has agreed to hand over the weapons that they used. This attempt has given the Assad Administration the sympathy of the Chinese republic and the Russian Federation. If the United States and the United Kingdom were to strike against Syria, with France included by assisting or conducting their own missle strike, could cause the Third world war. Which we dont need considering that we have specialized Nuclear Missles in all of the top countries, world war three could just mean the end of the world as we know it. So I agree but I also strongly disagree.
Cadet Horsley
McGraw
I agree with Obama because the Syrian government is doing something wrong and torturing innocent people with these gasses and if we go in and help then it will hopefully stop, but if we don't go in then it will continue to be used and may affect other countries including ours. I think going in to Syria will show other countries that we are not messing around when we say to stop and make an agreement with the whole world to not use these very harmful weapons and on top of that it is a very painful thing to go through when they are used on people. I believe we should go in and help these innocent people who aren’t even a part of this and get it over with and make sure they are going to stop using such a harmful thing. If I lived in Syria and this was happening to me I would want help and this is the right thing to do so I say yes we need to go help.
AS3 Cadet Stevens
I disagree with Obamas stance on any actions towards Syria. The biggest reason: its none of our business. These chemical weapons weren't launched directly at an U.S targets, or any of our allies. So why butt into this problem? Just because chemical weapons were banned by 98% of the worlds population, like Obama stated numerous times, doesn't mean WE have to be the ones to go in and fix it. There are other countries/ nations in the U.N that can take care of it. Israel is more then capable of taking care of coordinate air strikes if that be the case, and diplomatically, Russia is working on it, who also happens to be one of Syrias allies who should be able to nudge them in the right direction to fixing their decisions. We don't need to be the police force in this situation. Syria has no capability in harming the U.S so this should not be an issue to us. We have problems of our own that need to be fixed. Not some other country that we are barely affiliated with.
Disagree - B.Prater 7:26 pm
In my opinion I disagree on the whole Syria thing. Yes it was sad thing that happen and r.i.p to the adults and children that lost their lives but honestly I think America need to stay out of it because it’s bad enough that were pretty much left with the mess that wasn’t cause by us and Obama should not leave it up to congress to make the decision on whether we me or not. We need to focus on the home base as much as we can and probably put in as lil of help as we could just to protect us and allies as a country.
Asha Stewart
In my opinion, I believe we should not take action against Syria. American’s are not the World Wide Police. Even though the Syrian government did break treaty, if we do choose to punish them it could end up starting WWIII. With Russia being a very strong ally to Syria, I’m quite sure the effects of sending in any type of military would be devastating. Although looking at this issue in another light, if we don’t take action things could spiral out of control. Perhaps some sort of punishment, other than going in all ‘gung-hoe’, could be established. Anything except where more people have to die would suffice. Perhaps the Syrian government having to fix damages done would be a small way to ask for forgiveness. I know that to a lot of people this will never be enough in their eyes to repay their debt, but in a fair world no one is happy.
Alek Poliks
I think that something needs to be done about these chemical weapons in Syria. If the U.S. as bad as it is now just decides to stay out of the Syrian issue, what message is that going to deliver to other countries? The message that the other countries will get is that the U.S. is weak and cowardly. If no one wants to do anything about these chemical weapons, other countries are more than likely going to decide to use chemical weapons because they will now know that the U.S. will stay out of their affairs. The other reason for why I think this problem needs to be dealt with is because innocent lives are being counted among the death toll. If nothing is done about these weapons, the population of Syria could very well decrease to the point of Syria's population almost being wiped out. Not only that, but the chemicals could become so severe that the land itself could become an uninhabitable wasteland. Plants will die, animals will die, everything will die.
I do not believe we should use Military action against Syria. I understand that innocents were killed, and the way they killed them was illegal, but you don't solve problems by immediately threatening Military action, unless it's a direct threat to us as a country, or it negatively affects our way of life. Diplomatic solutions are the most effective, and it ensures that no more lives will be lost over a pointless argument. Another reason why I think it's a bad idea, is because we're doing so against the UN's approval. We are part of the UN, and to disregard the rules is ignorant and shows we don't care. Russia is also a big ally of Syria, military action would worsen the already bad tensions between the two countries.
Cadet Silver, 1st Period
Agree
N.Dillahunt
I agree with President Obama because if we start to attack them, we would have to start killing innocent people then that would look bad on us. Money will be a big problem because were going to start spending a lot of it sending troop to Syria with guns and ammo and all that other stuff they need. Were already indebt why do we need to make it worse? Some Countries are going to get mad at use and won’t send anything to us. I say do not attack Syria because that’s going to make more problem than the united states already have.
(A)- Prater
I Agree
My personal opinion is that I think Obama was making the right choice with the Syria situation, I think what he is doing is right. Even just sending out a little bit of troops out there to see what going on, how they can fix it and what they can do to help. Because think about it, you have someone out there killing people and families and babies dying in there parents arms running and screaming for help be gassed by chemical weapons! As I went to work this week I talked to a few marines about this situation some of them agree and some disagree with it but no matter what they say if they have to go in to war then it will be a fight to fight for our country not just us but saving the life’s of poor innocent people in Syria!
I think president Obama is doing the right thing by trying to stop Syria from using chemical weapons. If Syria is a threatening the US or any other countries then we need to stop them right now before anything bad really happens. I feel that Syria needs to stop with taking innocent peoples lives by using chemical weapons, But by bombing Syria even though they agreed to stop using chemical weapons, there's no point to it anymore
Cadet N.Green
Chris Panella
I don’t agree
I do not agree with the President’s Address on Syria. I don’t think we should send in troops. I feel that we should use diplomats to make them stop. If they don’t then do worry as long as they aren’t threatening the United States. In the other hand what if it wasn’t the Syrian government. Like President Obama said they don’t have any hard evidence saying that it was the Syrian government. I don’t think he should send in troops unless the Syrian government threatens the United States. Then I will agree to him sending in troops. Until then, it is a no for me.
Shaylynn Norrell
I agree with Obama but then again I don’t. I agree that we shouldn’t bomb Syria because that would most likely start a war. And with our men still in recovery, I don’t think that would turn out to well for us at the moment. Although they signed a form banding them from using the gases, I believe once they have done it, they will do it again. And signing a paper does not justify all the people that were killed after what seemed like and “experiment” took place. Even though I don’t want a war to break out I still think we should do something as to justify all the people and children that were killed that day.
Please tell me what this sounds like to you ....
Kroshus
I greatly hate jumping into all these debates without proper knowledge or with biased opinions, it makes me feel like a dirty politic, but here it goes.
Yes I do believe something should be done about Syria, but I don't think we should be the ones to do it. Yes the united States is great, but how are we supposed to fix other countries when we can't help ourselves, yeah we're not gassing out civilians, but we should fix ourselves before we go out reaching for another possible war. As it's apparently been spread across the news, Russia is supposedly taking the weapons to dispose of them, which is a way better way then launching attacks and basically declaring another war. I know we mean well, but sometimes the more covert way is greater than going in guns-a-blazing.
Not to mention us stepping in is going to make us that much of a bigger target, and they could turn their attention to us instead of their rebels...if we put people on the ground over there, what's stopping the Syrian's from simply gassing our troops, thus murdering our own. There has got to be a simpler way to do it then launching an attack, whether is be drones, troops or missiles.
My issue is though, the president has supposedly been going back and forth on his word. Saying he drew a red line at some point but now he's acting like it didn't happen and is just stepping back saying now if they cross this new line he'll go forward. If you're going to promise to take action, you don't step down when it comes time to. There was also a point where he said he didn't need the support of congress to order an attack on Syria, but now he is choosing to have them vote anyways. I wish he would make a discussion and stick to it.
Grady Hyatt
I agree with the president for several reasons. One being that, should America launch a strike on Syria, two being America won’t just be fine after the strike because Syria would retaliate and then America would actually have to get involved in another war as opposed to just launching a strike and we would not have troops go into Syria like the president said. Another reason is that Russia would also side with Syria, should we go to war or launch a strike and since Russia has a very well trained and well armed army the war would be very bloody and lots of people would die. My last reason on why America should not get involved is that Russia is also trying to do something about the chemical weapons already so I think we should trust Russia and take away the chemical weapons. Although people are dying in Syria and they need help, we do not need to get involved for it wouldn’t be politically good for America.
Cadet Santariga
Obama brings good points to defend both sides of this debate but he has convinced me that the correct action to take, in terms of sending a message to the dictators of the world. It is time to shut Syria down. Yes people have asked why does America have to be the world's piece keepers and I reply to them because no one else will. The use of chemical weapons has been banned and for a good reason. Obama said that America has set the guide lines and now it is time for America to enforce them. Even if Syria decides to join the Chemical Weapons Convention they still would not have learned a lesson that every dictator in this world needs to learn. That lesson being not to use chemical weapons that kill innocent people. The time is now to put this fire out not only in Syria but in the rest of the world.
9-15-13
Dominae Smith
I believe that we should not go to Syria. We always helping different nations with wars and other problems and we end up getting mixed in the middle of it. Well think we should stay here in order to keep from getting mixed up in what could possibly end up being another war. I don’t mind America helping other countries with problems but we could be stepping on some thin ice. Don’t get me wrong though, what happened in Syria was a horrible thing. That should never happen again and whoever did it needs to be punished for it. I just believe we should stay here just to be safe
Cadet girard
I personally believe that president Obama does not need to invest valuable time, money, and military resources on this issue. The syrian government should handle this issue by themselves. If that is not possible, than a different nation should step in. We as a nation do not have the economic stability to go to war with another country. We are just now ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military has been exhausted over the past ten years. If president Obama decides to send troops to Syria, it will only send our nation in to further turmoil. If he wants to be the world's police than he needs to solve the problems we have in our own country.
C/Attridge
Agree
I personally agree with Obama to send an air strike to Syria. I believe we should do more than just send an air strike. They have been using chemical weapons even though Syria was one of the many countries that signed the treaty to not use chemical weapons. They went from a simple warfare of using guns to now using chemicals. They have killed many children and innocent civilians in the process. We have been given evidence from Syria that they are using those weapons. They decided to take the weapons and wipe out a total of eleven neighborhoods that they have been in battle with. It would not be long before they would decide to make it more than just a civil war. If they are going to this extent to win a simple civil war, who knows what measures they would take to go against another country. There is no possible way of actually predicting that to happen, but if there is a chance to stop it then we should take that chance and use it. Even though we should not be the first to go since there are countries closer, but we are the most relied country and we make sure to get things done. That is why I agree.
I disagree
The United States of America should not move into Syria. United States of America already has enough problems by itself. So by us going over there to try to strip them from chemical weapons would probably create more problems for the United States of America. I'm not saying it's going to end up like Afghanistan or Iraq.But any type of problem threatening the USA would probably be a big concern. I'm not sure if Syria would be a big threat, but any threat should not be taken lightly. Of course what Syria did was wrong but the U.S cannot be the worlds superhero country and get involved into everything. I think we should not take extreme action on Syria. I do feel bad for the people and families losing loved ones because of the situation.
Cadet McMullen
Cadet Tyer
I don't think what Obama has planned is the right thing to do with syria. With the way the economy is and all the hate, crime, racsim, just everything going on in the world right now is a big blur. We loose troops daily. They are risking their lives for thousands of others. Do they have to? No they don't, not at all. But that is the lifestyle and job/career they chose and they are living up too it. Our troops have enough too worry about, remember, and do right now as it is.. dealing with Obamas stupidity shouldn't have to be one of them. I honestly think if we go with this Syria thing, that it will carry us into another war, but a lot worse and possibly another terriost attack. Obama shouldn't send our troops over there to do damage. I'm not racsist, but we were better off without Obama and his input. People dislike our president. He doesn't make the right choices for the United States says some American citizens. Everyone has there own believe and I agree that everyone should have a chance to speak there own opinion. I do not think that it is a good idea to go with this at all. We have a 50/50 % chance of failure, getting attacked, or truely anything could go wrong. Obama should of put more thought, or came up with a better reason for what he has caused America to be put through. Also our troops. I believe that Obama should put his self in other shoes and look at it from other point of views other then his own.
Watching the segment of President Obama’s speech, I have come to the conclusion that I strongly disagree with being involved in Syria’s civil war. I feel that it would not be very smart going into Syria with knowing that America has its own difficulties at this time to include our economy and a divided country ourselves. Helping them would be a mistake by putting more American soldiers’ lives at stake. We, the United States are already in a war in Afghanistan and recovering from the Iraq war. Why must we get involved in THEIR civil war? The United States should not be the voice of the United Nations. Looking back to when the USA was in the civil war, no country helped us. We were on our own. Though I do not agree with the chemical use on the people in Syria but even knowing, we should let them fight it out like all the countries did with us. Look where we are now, one of the top countries in the world.
Also listening to Obama’s speech, he mentioned we will not put one US boot on the Syria ground till the people of US figure out what we shall do as a country. This means supporting the decisions of the government. Even though President Obama has told the American people we are undecided, the troops already have their marching orders.
Samantha Mumford
JROTC, 1st period
Agree
C/SrA Baines
I agree that something should be done about the Syrian government's chemical weapon use. The reasons that they attempt to use do not justify the fact that they broke international law. I feel that like any other form of criminal, Syria should be punished for their actions. A planned, concentrated, air strike would be within our means as one of the most powerful countries. Not only would it serve as a reminder to tyrants that you can't break internationals sanctions without repercussions, but it would prevent any future attacks from the Syrian government on their people. As long as the strike is precise and powerful, the message will be sent and many lives will be saved.
Agree
Cadet Harmon
I think something should be done about Syria because it is proven once one country disobey an international law it opens a door for others to do the same, and we cant have that and i actually saw some of the videos with my mom over the weekend and what i saw was very disgraceful. So I say what kind of nation would we be if we dont take action and just watched as thousands of more people died, I also agree with Obama wanting congress on he side before taking action because with congress on his side it would more as a more justable reason to actually take action, also my brother is a member of the armed forces and he actually wants to go take action over in Syria too and hes one of the ones fighting. But with my beliefs we would not be a true nation under God when we see those people in trouble and being killed and not do a thing about it
Agree Cadet Harmon
After watching the mini segment with the President I disagree with what President Obama is saying about sending troops into Syria. I disagree because if sending them to Syria and to drop a bomb the Syrians are going to think well they just destroyed us which is going to give them the mind set that they need to retaliate which is going to start a war. If they do decide to retaliate they are going to most likely drop nuclear bombs that can cause massive destruction. At that thought we as America is already in war with Afghanistan and also we are just recovering with the war from Iraq if sending these troops to Syria there will be a war started which would be putting more soldiers at danger.
Cadet Jania Johnson
C/McGuire
I do not agree with President Obama on his plan to get involved in Syria. It is not our war so why should we do anything about it. If we do then that will just start another war like we had in Iraq a few years back. There is no need for us to put troop’s life in danger in a war that does not involve us. I say, let them solve their problems themselves. Once they are a threat to us then we can get involved but until then we should worry about ourselves and stop being the world’s police.
Post a Comment