Go to the following link and view the short video about Syrian history and the present conflict. Then read the New York Times article below, which supports one viewpoint. Then talk with a parent and see what they think. Now respond to at least the first question below.
1. Should the United States intervene in the Syrian Revolution or not? What is your reasoning?
2. What are reasons that we shouldn't intervene?
3. Why is this issue important to the United States? (Think about Afghanistan and Iraq.)
4. What else do you think about this issue?
WATCH THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Then READ THIS:
5 Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now
By MICHAEL DORAN and MAX BOOT
Published: New York Times, September 26, 2012
WHETHER you agree or disagree with President Obama, there is no doubt that he has formulated a coherent approach to the use of American power. The Obama Doctrine involves getting into a conflict zone and getting out fast without ground wars or extended military occupations. This approach proved its effectiveness in Libya last year.
follow@andyrNYT.
But the president is not applying his own doctrine where it would benefit the United States the most — in Syria. One can certainly sympathize with his predicament. Syria is a mess, and it is tempting to stay out, especially in an election year. Yet inaction carries its own risks. There are five reasons to bring down President Bashar al-Assad sooner rather than later.
First, American intervention would diminish Iran’s influence in the Arab world. Iran has showered aid on Syria and even sent advisers from its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to assist Mr. Assad. Iran knows that if his regime fell, it would lose its most important base in the Arab world and a supply line to pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.
Second, a more muscular American policy could keep the conflict from spreading. Syria’s civil war has already exacerbated sectarian strife in Lebanon and Iraq — and the Turkish government has accused Mr. Assad of supporting Kurdish militants in order to inflame tensions between the Kurds and Turkey.
Third, by training and equipping reliable partners within Syria’s internal opposition, America could create a bulwark against extremist groups like Al Qaeda, which are present and are seeking safe havens in ungoverned corners of Syria.
Fourth, American leadership on Syria could improve relations with key allies like Turkey and Qatar. Both the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Qatari counterpart have criticized the United States for offering only nonlethal support to the rebellion. Both favor establishing a no-fly zone and “safe zones” for civilians in Syrian territory.
Finally, American action could end a terrible human-rights disaster within Syria and stop the exodus of refugees, which is creating a burden on neighboring states. Mr. Obama pledged earlier this year to strengthen the government’s ability “to foresee, prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities.” Now he has an opportunity to do so. And by putting allies in the lead, Mr. Obama could act without sliding down the slippery slope toward a ground war.
Our closest friends in the region — including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and Israel — would like to see Mr. Assad toppled as soon as possible. France and Britain could also be counted on to help, as they did in Libya. Yet none of them will move until America does.
We cannot wait for the United Nations to act; that is highly unlikely. Nor can we expect the Free Syrian Army to oust Mr. Assad on its own; it is not a cohesive organization. Instead, America must identify those elements on the ground that are the most effective, easily supplied and amenable to help.
The focus should be on Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city and commercial hub. The F.S.A. already controls much of the territory between the city and the Turkish border, only 40 miles away. With American support, Turkish troops could easily establish a corridor for humanitarian aid and military supplies. Defeating the government’s forces in Aleppo would deal a serious blow to Mr. Assad and send a powerful signal to fence-sitters that the regime was dying.
Damascus, the capital, should be the second target. But unlike Aleppo, it can’t be easily reached from a Turkish base. It could, however, be supplied from Dara’a, which is 70 miles from Damascus and less than five from the Jordanian border. It has been at the forefront of opposition to Mr. Assad. Working with Jordan, the United States could create a second corridor to Dara’a, which could serve as the southern base for the insurgency. On Wednesday, by bombing a military complex, the rebels demonstrated their ability to strike in the heart of Damascus — though they have not yet been able to do so on a sustained basis.
To prevent Mr. Assad from staging a devastating response, the American-backed alliance would have to create a countrywide no-fly zone, which would first require taking apart Syrian air defenses. Mr. Assad has been using jets and helicopters to fight the rebels; a no-fly zone would quickly ground his entire air force. The zone could then be extended to provide the kind of close air support that NATO warplanes provided to rebel fighters in Kosovo and Libya.
While our allies could take the lead in maintaining the no-fly zone, it is necessary in Syria, as in Libya, for America to take the lead in establishing it; only our Air Force and Navy have the weaponry needed to dismantle Syria’s Russian-designed air defenses with little risk.
A “lead from behind” approach can work in Syria. President Obama need only apply it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I think a full intervention would not be good, because as Menelik said, it costs a lot of money and lives of Americans. We can't turn this into another Afghanistan or Iraq. The United States could provide a no-fly zone that would easily allow NATO to provide the air support they did in Libya.
ReplyDelete2. We don't want to intervene because it would put us farther in debt. With the Iraq war wrapping up, we might have a chance to get rid of that debt. Also, we have cost so many lives in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we don't want to lose any more.
3. The issue is very important because Syria has become a "haven" for Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda is established in Syria, it will become another long lasting war to stop them from spreading to the whole Middle East without resistance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSyria is in a very deadly civil war where about 26,00 to 40,565 people have been killed so far. Syria is growing into a place where Al Qaeda can hide and plan attacks. I think that the United States of America should intervene, but not alone. They could get aid from other countries or maybe even the UN. They could impose sanctions on the Syrian government, however Bashar al-hassad Syria’s president is being provided with guns, missiles and other weapons from Iran. If Syria goes down then Iran will be in trouble. Though, some reasons not to intervene are, going into Syria will cost a lot of money and may loose a lot of lives. We could establish a no fly zone over all of Syria, and maybe if we chose not to go into Syria provide the Free Syrian Army with more weaponry. I feel that the best idea is to first, establish a no fly zone. Second, wait till we have pulled out more troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. During that time period, provide the Free Syrian Army weapons. Try to get some
ReplyDeleteUN officials in Syria. If later on, the United States of America needs to go into Syria to get the job done, then they should.
1) America should not intervene with the Revolution. We’ve intervened quite enough in things that don’t have anything to do with us: Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Libya too. These countries didn’t need our help, they didn’t ask for our help, we just stepped in to be the hero and save the day. America, in my eyes, is a pretty messed up place. We pretend to be heroic and save people’s lives, and we do, but what are we really doing it for? The real motives behind this aren’t to be nice. What are they? So other countries respect us? Or become our allies? For oil? Whatever the reason, no one stepped in and did that much help in our civil war. Maybe the French did for 10 seconds, but no one really reads about them. These countries need their own history, their own victories, and we need to keep our noses out of it.
ReplyDelete2) Obama was the main target here. Obama should do something. It’s election year, about 1000 hours from the general election, and even though everyone’s got his or her fingers crossed for Obama to win, there’s always a chance what happened to Clinton/Bush will happen with Obama/Romney (I sure hope not!). Obama has his hands full with campaigning and helping our country. Let’s face it: we might want to be the all-powerful country that jumps about the globe helping any poor souls who need it, but we have our own problems. Our economy is still recovering, we’re in huge debt, and we’re about to have an election. We have our own problems, Syria has their own, and I know it sounds heartless, but we have to deal with ourselves and they need to do the same. Also, if we did something, we’d drag Britain and France into it too. Why!? Again, is America ruling the world here, or do we just think we are?? We should just leave these countries alone!
1) I think that the United States should intervene because if they don’t intervene, then Al Queda will still have a place to stay and plan. Al Queda is in Syria with a place to plan and attack people with no one stopping them. If the United States goes in and intervenes, then they should go with help from other allied countries. The countries could help them defeat Al Queda and put a penalty on Syria’s government. The only obstacle in the way, is the president in Syria, Mr. Assa, who has weapons and guards. President Obama also has to agree to put this in motion so that the U.S. can help Syria with the revolution.
ReplyDelete1) In order for the United States to intervene with the Syrian Revolution, we would not only have to have the help of everyone in our country, but also the help from other countries. The civil war in Syria is a disaster and there is no sign of improvement. There have been many killed, therefore, I think the best way for the Untied States to help with this war, is to train reliable partners within Syria’s internal opposition. This would help create protect the Syrians against extremist groups like Al Qaeda.
ReplyDelete2) There are many reasons why helping with the Syrian Civil war would hurt our country. If the United States were to intervene, we would have to spend millions of dollars. Therefore, we would be using money that we can use to improve something’s about our country.
3) Whenever there is a chance to help other countries with crisis such as this one, the United States responds. Our country wants to make sure that we help with any violence that is occurring in other countries, so that this leads to having more peace in the world throughout.
America should intervene in this war because of three reasons.
ReplyDelete1). If we go into this war we get help from France and Britain. They want to help us, but they need us to act first. With three different armies, it would lower the death of troops and amount of money spent for each country.
2). If we go into this war and we take out Mr. Assad, we enforce our alliance with Qatar and Turkey. If we don't intervene in Syria then we can consider this alliance over.
3). The people of Syria are not cohesive. With the help of our army supplying military supplies and strategy we can work with the people to take out Mr. Assad. If we do this we could establish a good rapport with the people and help get over their struggle of their terrible human rights situation.
1. The Syrian revolution is a complicated matter from the United State’s viewpoint. We are much more privileged then other countries. It is almost like our duty to step in and help the people that are suffering from this, because few others will do it. Although being in Syria has a few advantages, we should concentrate on American problems before we move on to helping other countries. At the same time, this seems very similar to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that the United States should be focusing more on their domestic problems, because it is what we should do before we start intervening in other countries. Being in Syria would cost both money and American lives. A government’s job is to protect its country and keep things running smoothly and it would be out of line to put Syria before our own country.
ReplyDelete2. In the New York Times article, it is pointed out that helping Syria may benefit the United States as well. But I think that we should think about the reasons we should go in compared to the reasons for staying out. The United States has already involved themselves in the matters of other foreign countries, and while that brought small victories and joys, it was causing the United States more harm the good. Although the battle against Al Qaeda seems important, our country should focus more on the economy and rights of its people.
3. The United States is already under pressure to go into Syria. There are temptations about going into the war that would be helpful to the United States. It is easy to compare this case to Afghanistan and Iraq. These past events have left an expectation for the United States, but, as Jenna said, the United States doesn’t need to be a hero all the time. This issue would help the United States role in the other foreign countries, but it is not worth it.
America should intervene with the Syrian Revolution. By overthrowing Al-assad, America could make allies with the new rebel government. This collaboration will help the U.S. in the fight against terrorism. Currently, there exists at least one Al Qaeda base in Syria. It would be harder for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to set up bases in Syria and attack Americans. Intervening in this war could improve relations between America, Turkey, and Qatar. America would also be able to help the human rights disaster in Syria and stem the flow of refugees into neighboring countries. An intervention could make it possible to establish a no-fly zone, which is a very important part in fighting this war. The Syrian government is using many helicopters and airplanes to fight the rebels. The rebels are only fighting on the ground. If America were to intervene, the Syrian government would be toppled in no time.
ReplyDeleteSyria is a country with relatively few natural resources and several different ethnic groups.
ReplyDeleteFirst is the Allawite sect, comprising about 13% of the population, a group of Arabs who follow a slightly different sect of Islam from the other Syrians, who are generally better educated than other Syrians, and mostly support Mr. Assad's Bath Party, the ostensibly democracy-based ruling Party. Mr. Assad is an Allawite.
Second is the vast number of Sunnis who make up the bulk of the country. The Arab Sunnis (see following paragraphs for discussion of non-Arab Sunnis) make up about 60% of the population of Syria. They are generally fairly well educated, although not as much as the Allawites, with a nearly universal literacy rate.
Christians make up about 11% of the Syrian population, and are generally fairly well integrated into society. They have some separate practices and many areas of the country are exclusively Christian or Allawite or Sunni.
Kurdish people are more complicated to define in Syria. They are more tribal and live secluded from other parts of Syria in a corner of the country. Kurdistan is a contiguous ethnic region populated by a majority Kurdish population encompassing parts of four different countries: Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. In Iraq, Kurdistan is already a fairly autonomous region under the rule of a separate government that functions fairly well and independently of the highly dysfunctional Iraqi government. About 30% of turkey, or much of what is known as "Eastern Turkey" is dominated by Kurds and suppressed by the Turkish government.
The problems with going into Syria are much more nuanced than suggested in the above article (in my opinion,) and require much deeper consideration than we are lead to believe. If a new government is formed than it will likely be one that represents the will of the Syrian people: a will that is very hostile towards our greatest ally, Israel. Assad is a known quantity for Israel. He recognized that he could not beat Israel and stopped trying. When the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) advanced into Lebanon in 2006, they knew they could count on Assad not to advance into the Golan heights, an area in the North of Israel that was captured from Syria in the "Six Day War" of 1967.
One other point important to recognize when speaking about intervention in Syria is the political atmosphere at home. To intervene in Syria would be seen as a ruthless move for political gain by President Obama to create the so-called "rally-around-the-flag" effect and give Mr. Obama a leg up in what seems to be a fairly close election. This could have the opposite effect in making him appear to be a ruthless political operator. Also, much of America has focused a great deal on the widening budget deficit and financial hole the United States is "digging itself into." I personally don't agree with this theory, as I believe in Keynesian economics, but many people, (and as follows, as many voters,) don't share my views. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost between 1.3 trillion and 4 trillion USD. Another war could be seen as a frivolous expenditure and therefore taken hostilely.
However, as tens of thousands of people have been killed to date, the conflict in Syria is increasingly becoming a human rights violation that the United States cannot afford to ignore if it wants to be able to call itself an upstanding, moralistic member of the community of nations.
Thus I believe a nuanced approach is called for. No allied lives should be put at risk and a spending cap of 10 billion dollars should be put on the war, after which all war funding will stop immediately for the conflict in Syria. This country cannot afford another war that may or may not be beneficial, perhaps not even morally. As Russian President Vladmir Putin said, "Maybe what comes afterward is worse, did you think of that?"
My comment was too long for the platform to accept, so I had to use a second one. excuse me for the inconvenience.
ReplyDeleteA no-fly zone should be established and maintained, making sure that the Syrian government cannot terrorize its people from the skies, and frequent Air Force patrols should be employed to make sure that any convoys of the Syrian Army are destroyed from the air. Finally, any and all weapons and medical supplies should be delivered to the Free Syrian army, and no more than 200 advisers from NATO countries should be sent to Syria to train and organize a better structured, better organized, and better trained organization.
We should not intervene with the Syrian Revolution, because of the reasons Jenna and some other people said. We don't want this to turn into another war in Afghanistan or Iraq, just because we tried to help. The United States also has its own problems, like restoring the economy and being in a huge debt. The United States should just worry about themselves first (as selfish as it sounds) and then once it's squared away, try helping everyone else. There is a big difference between being heroic and insensible, and intervening into the Syrian Revolution without handling your own problems first is just unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should not intervene in the Syrian Revolution. Although the United States believes in freedom for all, helping the rebels in Syria will just cause more problems. First of all, we have already gotten ourselves involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe we should focus our attention on these situations, as well as concentrate on issues in our own country. If the United States publically gets involved backing up the Syrian rebels, we could end up fighting with other countries who support the Assad Regime, such as Iran or Russia. Intervening will not only cost a lot of money, but it would be very dangerous for those fighting. I agree with Jenna when she discussed how the Syrian people also never even asked for our help. For these reasons, it is not our place to intervene.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the most of Syria does not care for the help of the United States. However there is the standing fact that the headquarters of Al Quaeda -as Abby says - should be toppled as soon as possible. Our allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, and Israel should not be kept in such danger, and the quicker we make a move, the faster this will be over. Once we take lead, the United Nations will most certainly back us up, as will most of the countries around Syria for fear of destruction. We are not doing this for the sake of being "the hero" but to maintain our alliances and end all possible troubles. Are we to intervene, we will be putting a stop to further problems in the area, and satisfying the other countries. "It will cost us too much", many people above say. However, do you really think we can afford to leave our allies in danger? What will cost us more in the long run? We would much rather keep our bonds and benefit from not having to replace them and deal with further problems with Mr. Assad.
ReplyDelete1) I do believe we should intervene in Syria, but as Jeffrey said, we shouldn't turn Syria into another Afghanistan or Iraq. Both of those wars have cost a lot of money and American lives, which are too valuable to lose in Syria. If we do intervene, it need only to be to a small extent, just enough where we can keep peace in that region.
ReplyDelete2) Some reasons we shouldn't intervene include money and American lives. Attempting to take control of a city is risky and could cost lives if it is not executed properly. As Cassandra mentioned, we already have enough problems in the United States with our own debt, so we can't afford to spend too much money on Syria.
3) This issue is a matter of control of the Middle East. Syria borders Iraq and is only about 1,000 miles away from Afghanistan, so having Syria as an ally would give the United States more control over that area. Some of the countries near Syria are already allies of ours, and adding Syria to the list would station us right next to Iraq and within striking distance from the other countries in the Middle East.
Harry T. 8-4
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should in fact intervene in the Syrian Revolution now with the permission of China and Russia. Although “Syria is a mess, and it is tempting to stay out, especially in an election year.” Every minute we restrain from prevailing into Syria, innocent people and families are being vigorously murdered. A whopping 7000 and counting people have died in Syria within the month. I understand why Obama is restricting from sending troops in, but honestly, when we send a soldier into Syria, the United Nations will surely help guide us to take down Mr. Assad. We can’t afford to lose our allies because “in the long run,” we may need them and we don’t want to be desperately asking for help from other countries. In addition, by taking down Mr. Assad, Iran will “lose its most important base in the Arab world” making Iran less of a threat. The United States will have to intervene, whether it’s now or later, it is just a matter of fact of how much money we will spend on the issue. The longer we wait, the more costly it will be to send in troops. Syria is becoming more of a mess everyday and sadly people are suffering from this. Families do not have to suffer, but America has to take action and do what’s right!
ReplyDelete1.The United States of America should intervene in the Syrian Revolution because Syria is has dangerous dictator leading the country and has Al-Qaeda members safe housed. If the USA intervened it would have a positive effect with allies near Syria such as Qatar, Turkey and Israel who are large producers of oil. Oil, is one of the main reasons the USA go to war such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in Syria the USA should not be the main force.
ReplyDelete2. The problems of intervening in Syria are it turns into another war with the USA leading the charge like Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were to happen USA's dept would become even greater.
3. Syria is important to the USA because like I said before the countries around Syria and Syria itself are oil countries.If the USA and allies help eliminate the Dictatorship then the new Syrian government and countries around will want to trade with the USA.
The United States shouldn’t intervene in the Syrian Revolution. We are always pushing other countries and fighting their fights for them (read: Iraq, Lybia, Afghanistan). Nowhere did they send pleas asking for help, they never asked for our help, the same help that killed umpteen amounts of their own people. We just wanted to show to the world that we are all high and mighty, like we are the supreme country. Who says that USA has to get all the glory? Sometimes to earn their own respect, a country should forge their own history, succeed in their own victories. By stepping in for every little thing no country can ever gain respect; it would be like being constantly babysitted, never allowed to make your own decisions. We are like that one nosy neighbor that gets into everyone’s business. “Oh, you had a rude guest? Go hide in your room, we will kill them and probably kill a couple members of your family. But, ya know we are saving you guys so you should give us free dinner for a year. Right? Thanks.” I highly doubt that the USA actually wants to save countries; there is a 99% chance of an ulterior motive. Maybe if we “help” a country then we can stick in our own guy and control the area. It just seems like we are forcing Middle-Eastern countries into giving us trust so that they will give us oil. Getting into useless battles will kill innocent Syrians and American soldiers alike.
ReplyDeleteI think that at the first chance we should get out of their country and focus on our own country. If anything we are inhibiting progress and the pride of Syrians. While our own country is trillions of dollars in debt and just barely recovering from a recession, we are pushing out ridiculous amounts of money into fighting wars that we should just stay out of. Think about it, since 2001 we have spent over 1.3 trillion dollars in battle. That money could be put in our own economy so that the US dollar isn’t a joke. In the article provided, it states that if we go in we will be bringing in other countries with us. Why should we make others fight in battles that the US themselves shouldn’t be fighting in. Once again, we are acting like the big brother no one wants. We should get out of Syria’s face and spend our money to save our own country from a pitfall.
The Syrian people need relief from an autocratic government presiding over more than 20,000 deaths, 200,000 injured, and over a million displaced people (CNN “GPS” on 9/30/12). The Syrian leadership must resign. But what government will replace it? I agree with Jeffrey in that we cannot go all out in Syria. We are already overcommitted and we don’t know how such engagement will end. We should only go in if we can be certain of an optimal outcome. Yet, even the Syrians are in different factions and, as with the Iraqis and Afghanis, may not react well to another Western intervention. The USA should work hard diplomatically in assembling a coalition, economically, in weakening the current government and militarily (with international support) in creating a no-fly zone to reduce the loss of life of innocent civilians. We could also provide intelligence information to our allies in the area. The USA should avoid using ground troops, endangering American lives and potentially inadvertently destabilizing the region. Once engaged, how would our troops get out? We need to know what kind of government would be installed if we toppled Assad. As we saw in Iraq, we don’t want to solve one problem only to end up in a protracted civil war.
ReplyDeleteThe United States may need to intervene in the Syrian Revolution, but now is not the time. As a country, we cannot allow intervention of any kind to evolve into another war, so taking time to plan and gain support is key. As Menelik said, this is not something the United States should do alone. Although coming together with the United Nations as a whole would be ideal, pooling forces with a few strong, individual countries could potentially give us the strength we need to end the dictatorship that has controlled Syria for so many decades.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to send in troops today, however, we would only be contributing to the bloodbath and chaos. If the United States is to intervene, our soul purpose should be to put a stop to the tangled political mess that the Syrian government has come to be. We want to spare as many innocent lives as we possibly can, because thousands have already been wasted. Death will be necessary if we are to fight for this cause, but not in great numbers. For now, the most we should do is maintain a no fly zone above Syria and take it from there.
In their article, Michael Doran and Max Boot shared the opinion that “a ‘lead from behind’ approach can work in Syria. President Obama need only apply it.” What they don’t seem to understand is the consequences that would follow this hasty approach. Eventually, leading from behind may be the answer, but it requires extensive planning. Jumping into it would mean ground war, which is something that should not be taken lightly. America cannot continue our dirty habit of immediately pulling out the weapons whenever something goes wrong. Instead of slowly approaching a hornet’s nest, we are known to throw rocks and wait for the bees to sting. The United States needs to break this habit and find a new solution before intervention in Syria is possible.
I think that the US should intervene in the Syrian War. Although intervention would put many American soldiers’ lives in jeopardy, it would also lead to a more speedy end in the war, cutting the number of lives lost. It is also Important to intervene in Syria because we would be cutting of supplies and taking away an ally from Iran, which has been aiding the Syrian dictator. Doing this, we would also gain and advantage against terrorist groups which have been finding refuge in parts of Syria. American interference could also stop the conflict from spreading, as it has already begun to cause other conflict in Lebanon and Iraq. The leaders of Turkey and Quatar have criticized the US for not intervening so far, and doing so would bring them closer as allies. Lastly, the US needs to stop the human rights disaster within Syria as well as the refugees pouring out of Syria and putting pressure on neighboring nations. By intervening now, the US can and will bring about a quicker, less violent end to the war.
ReplyDeleteThe United States shouldn't get involved with Syria because of our debt. Right now, the country is in over 16 trillion in debt. If we were to invade Syria, it would cost an estimated 300 billion dollars, plus for every year we occupy it would cost another $300 billion. All of this money keeps piling on to our already massive debt, and makes it even harder to get out of when we could have just let the Syrians figure it out by themselves. Going to war with Syria could be unpopular with many Americans, because Syria hasn’t directly threatened us yet, and could turn into a very unpopular war like Vietnam or Iraq. The United States shouldn’t go into war with Syria because of the debt we are already in, and that it will be unpopular with many Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe United States shouldn’t intervene in Syria. Intervening in another country’s problems could create more problems not just for the US and Syria, but for the surrounding countries too. Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan Syria never asked for the help of the United States. Intervening without the need for it by Syria could cause a bigger war between the US and other countries. Many of the reasons for intervening in Syria are designed to help the US. One of the points mentioned was to please our allies surrounding Syria, so as to help our country, instead of supporting Syria. Also mentioned was the plan to help put our allies in the lead so as to protect the US from ground war, something that won’t even happen if we choose not to intervene. This is why this issue is so important to the US, because some people feel that if the US intervenes, we will benefit from it. We shouldn’t intervene because of these reasons, but we should at least provide medical supplies and be prepared to step in if Syria asks for our help. We should avoid getting into another war because we decided to provide help without it being requested.
ReplyDelete1) America should not intervene with Syria. Sure it would improve relations with Turkey and Qatar, do they really need our help? America needs to stop overruling the world and give other country's a chance to fix their own mistakes. America needs to stay out of it, because others are not asking for our help. America is a top country and it is nice to "share the wealth" and lend a hand on others but not if they are doing great on their own and not in need of help.
ReplyDeleteAmerica should not intervine in syria. Even if it helped improve relations in the middle east because of our debt. We need to fix our economy before we can focus on war. When USA starts war in foreign countries we make enemies as well as allies. The rest of the world can't rely on america to always fix their problems. Once we are no longer in debt we can begin to help other countries but until then we need to stay out of it.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should intervene in Syria. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are being killed, and also being displaced. Assad is committing awful crimes and it is also a crime that the USA has not helped the Syrian people who have done little wrong.
ReplyDelete1) The United States shouldn't intervene in Syria. In my opinion, the United States should solve their own problems before solving other countries problems. Although people in Syria are in need of help because of terrible human-rights, they never actually came out and asked America for help. The United States should focus on the debt they have gotten themselves into, employing people, and several other issues before helping other countries with their issues. After we have accomplished these things, we should reevaluate, and see if Syria still needs our help.
ReplyDelete2) Helping in Syria would hurt the United States in several ways. For example, it would cost our country a lot of money which would further our debt by millions of dollars. We could be spending this money within our own country making the lives of many better. Helping with the Syrian Civil War would also cause many American deaths. We have already lost so many in Afghanistan and Iraq, do we really need to loose any more?
1) The United States should intervene in the Syrian revolution. The main reason for establishing key allies in the area. If we establish allies such as Turkey and Qatar, it would be easier to create bulwark against extremist groups like Al Qaeda. Another obvious reason stated in the New York Times article is to keep the conflict from spreading. This is common knowledge and may be crucial in keeping peace with places such as Turkey and Lebanon. Through this convincing article I have only thought of one reason not to intervene. The five reasons stated are very compelling
ReplyDelete2) The reason to not intervene would be because of the Shabiha. This shadowy militia movement could be dangerous, and we don’t know how they would react to the USA entering their country. This could lead to civilian casualties.
3) This issue is important to the United States mainly for key allies in the area. Any allies who would help exploit terrorist groups either in Iraq or Afghanistan is important information for the United States. Allies could help end this war. Our troops are dying and about anything to give us the upper hand to end this war is key to the United States.
1) Normally I would be opposed to involving ourselves in other countries demise. It seems to get us in all of our largest problems, but this article shows me differently. The main reason it seems as if it would not cost too many troops or money because our allies will be right behind us. It would also strengthen our alliances with a few very important countries. Having those allies would greatly help the cause against Al Qaeda, as would winning the war in Syria.
ReplyDelete2) We wouldn't intervene because we are already in enormous debt and are involved in too many wars. We also always underestimate how much money and how many troops it will take to win the wars we get involved in. We also have a major issue with civilian deaths.
3) This is important to the U.S mostly because of the major allies in the area that are impacted by this war. It is always good to have more allies. Another big reason that it is important is so we can get much closer to overthrowing Al Qaeda.
1) We should intervene in the war because it is a situation that can easily heighten and all the countries that are close to it want it to be over. The countries that are close to where this is happening should be the ones fighting for this reason but since they will not start the battle. If we get involved in this war we can also make helpful alies over there for the wars that we are fighting right now.
ReplyDelete2) The reasons that we should not get involved are because we do not need anymore deaths in our military. Another great reason is that we do not need the country to be in any more debt than it is now.
The United States should intervene in the Syrian Revolution. In the youtube video, he clearly said 25 thousand people dead by the Crooks and Thugs since the uprising began. If we help in the Syrian Revolution you never know what we can get back for our support. It isn't like we are losing that much money and sending many troops out like we did in Afghanistan but its to our benefit as well. Syria would definitely be one of our allies if they intervene and thats what we need. So that we wont need to have more people from our country fighting back. They can send out their troops as well.
ReplyDeleteWe should not intervene with the Syrian Revolution, because we don't want this to turn into another war in Afghanistan or Iraq. There could be some positives and negatives from interfering with it. Some positives may be something like Josh said. They may be able to help us later on with a different situation we are in, but some negatives is the economy. If we intervene with the Syrian Revolution chances are it may turn into another Afghanistan or Iraq war. We would lose lots of lives, and money. I believe we should not intervene with the Syrian Revolution just because if something goes wrong, or economy would go down even more than it did before.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Government should intervene with the Syrian Revolution, because Syria’s leaders are working with our enemies, which will put a threat on the U.S. The leader of Syria is also supporting the Kurdish military. The support the Kurds get from Syria will cause tension between The Kurds, and The Turks. If U.S. Government intervenes, and overthrows the Syrian Government, we will influence the Syrian’s to diminish extremist groups. Intervening in the Syrian Revolution will put the U.S. in an overall good position. We will stop the fighting between two countries (The Kurds, and Turks), and diminish extremist forces. Intervening will also help out Syria which will put a reliable and helpful reputation on the U.S.
ReplyDelete