Can good politics make for good government action in Syria?
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SPEECH ON SYRIAN ACTION
RUSSIAN NEWS NETWORK REACTION TO CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES ON SYRIA
FOX NEWS CONSERVATIVE POINT OF VIEW ON SYRIA
CNN LIBERAL POINT OF VIEW ON SYRIA
INSTRUCTIONS:
Watch the four videos featured above and offer your comments as to whether or not the GOOD POLITICS IS MAKING FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT DECISIONS? Please react to each other's statements in a polite manner observing all rules of discourse outlined in the school code of conduct.
Watch the 4 videos. (Each video is about 3 minutes long) and write a brief reaction answering the question - Can good politics lead to good government policy in dealing with Syria?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, i do not think good politics can lead to towards good government because it seems like Congress is trying to be manipulated by the president, the press and other politicians to strike Syria which could not be a strong military and positive step for the US due to the repercussions and consequences we could face from other foreign nations and Syria after the strike. So if "good politics" here is gearing towards a strike thats fine because that is their opinion, but i would not necessarily say it would lead to good government because it could lead to some future controversy instead of us delivering the "knockout" punch Obama wishes to do- Mike DiBenedetto
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Syria dilemma, good politics is crucial for creating good government decisions. Cooperation at all levels of government and deliberation would help create a decision that most citizens can be satisfied with. However, the situation is very tricky; as revealed by the Russian News Network, Obama does not have the backing of the international community and therefore any action the United States would be illegal under international law. Despite the illegal nature of the U.S.'s proposed attack, humanitarian concerns must be considered. Even though the United States does not know if the Syrian government used the chemical gas Sarin (the Syrian government has denied that claim) we cannot wait and watch as innocent civilians are killed. Therefore, "good politics", which I construe as meaning good communications and policymaking among leaders, would lead to "good government."
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mike's comment, I do not think that Obama wishes to deliver a "knockout" punch as much as he wants to send a message. However, "sending a message" may not accomplish very much at all.
I would have to agree with Mike in that good politics is not leading towards good government policy in dealing with the supposed chemical attacks in Syria. Obama's "undeniable" evidence of a chemical attack cannot be described as such until he sets forth the evidence to those voting on the idea of bombing so that they may form their own opinion of the evidence, rather than taking Obama's work for the fact that there was a chemical attack. Also, even if Congress does authorize this strike, it is against United Nations policy to attack another country unless it is, in our case, an act of defense by the United States, which it is not. Obama has also failed to provide any information in regards to what national interests are being threatened by this "attack". If the United Nations concludes a chemical attack did occur and it can pinpoint a few nations to stop the crisis instead of the "policemen" United States acting alone, then good government action is being done.
ReplyDeleteGood politics can certainly lead to good government policy concerning Syria. However, we aren't getting good politics according to what is shown in these videos.
ReplyDeleteThere still appears to be great differences in opinions on the matter. One camp believes that there is clear evidence and that the U.S. should be the world police once again(Basically just the Obama Administration). The other camp includes people from Obama's own Democratic party and obviously conservatives who didn't like Obama in the first place.
Good politics will lead to good policy, but only once its clear what actually happened. Clear evidence will lead to clear decision making.
While Tim is not wrong when he says the U.S. can't sit back and let the situation run its course, I feel we should not take any military action until it is clear that these weapons were used purposefully by the Assad regime.
I agree with Ryan's statement about the United states acting alone. We should have the approval of the United Nations as per policy. However, by sending missiles as a threat is anything really being accomplished? This decision holds many people's lives at hand and if the President believes that this will benefit American interests as well as assisting the Syrian government then he should conduct better policy by not bashing Congress. Yes, he is going about the decision diplomatically but his politics will not reflect this because of his actions. Bashing congress and working around the UN will not be the cause of good government.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe above comment is by Natalie Gramegna. (I do not know why it reads as "nobody".)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natalie and Ryan and Mike because the president can make a very valid point as to why the United States should invade Syria. However the words of the president are held in high esteem, his ideas and opinions on what is best for the American people could vary depending on whether who listens to them. By threatening Syria with missile attacks we aren't solving the problem just bullying them into submission. to be a good government there must be a common ground and trying to bomb people isnt that going to get there. the presidents policy may or may not work so he should get congress's 100% approval before creating a bigger situation. Megan Batt
ReplyDeleteI, too, must agree with my fellow classmates that concluded that good politics do not make for good government in regards to the Syrian conflict going on. While, yes, the "chemical" attack on the Syrian people is tragic and cruel, I feel as if Obama is going to extreme with his views on the situation. I respect that he is staying so loyal to the traditional American belief that government is for the people. However, I feel like he is going against that by forcing and nagging Congress so much, as if he is forcing a view onto them. Additionally, we must remember that military action in Syria is illegal under the UN. In a way, if we go against the UN's policies, we would be hypocrites. We would be attacking Syria because they, too, performed a crime under UN standards. I feel like military action would be a better choice if we got support from more countries and it would be even better if we found a way to cooperate with the UN. Under these circumstances, I believe that the approach to attack Syria is good fundamentally and diplomatically, it would not be the wisest political approach.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with both Ryan and Tim on the matter, we have different sides of this issue. One side being the people who want the United States to get involved; pro involvement, and the other side that doesn't want Obama to do anything, let alone the fact that they didn't like him from the start. What ever happened to Washington's precedent of neutrality? Setting that precedent was supposed to benefit OUR country so we don't become redundant and replay the bad decisions and effects that happened in the past. Going back to Washington's precedent, good politics doesn't make for good government.
ReplyDeleteWe, our country, can have a well working, formed government if we don't take on world affairs, which will effect our politic outcomes. By the United States sending threats to Syria and other countries, it's going to effect the United States more deeply and will sink us more into debt, than anything else. Bringing Ryan's point into the matter, the United States can't do anything about it since it isn't a threat to the country, hopefully it will stay like that. If it is, Obama has the right to do what he wants with the case since it is an act of defense. Right now, Obama is taking on bad politics than bad government; both of them entwining together. Even though he wants to keep our country safe, he does not have good government and good politics with this situation. It's almost as if he is the second Thomas Jefferson who was using the constitution loosely (the elastic clause) to purchase the Louisiana Territory. If Obama continues on his path of the leader of this country, he would need to change his ways.
Bad politics does not lead to good government policy.
I agree with a majority of my classmates that good politics cannot lead to good government in dealing with Syria. President Obama is pushing for a strike against Syria that could have dangerous consequences in the long run. Not only that, but it could also cause international disagreement right away being that as both Tim and Ryan pointed out Obama does not have the international community on his side and if he chose to strike against Syria, he would be doing so illegally. Obama claims to have "undeniable" evidence that other countries, Britain for example, says isn't clear evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Mike and Ryan that good politics cannot lead to good government I also see what Matt is saying. Once the truth is found out and the information from the UN investigators who travelled to Syria is released good politics will be able to lead to good government. However, as of now no one knows if the Assad regime was the one to use the chemical weapons or if chemical weapons were even used at all. Based on what Obama has said, if a strike was to occur without this future information being released it would show that good politics cannot lead to good government.
I feel Congress has to put a lot of thought into the consequences of attacking Syria. Is getting involved in Syria just to send a message worth the other countries such Iran and Hezbollah being angered and moving to other methods of keeping the United States quiet? I agree with Christie that hopefully the civil war in Syria does not become a threat to the United States so that Obama does not have a reason to strike. A strike on Syria would put the United States further into debt and also add to the number of enemies we have in the Middle East. Jane Anderson
Before I address the question, i am confused about something. In the first video, Obama said he would get approval from Congress before taking action. I thought the constitution required him to do that anyway-was I mistaken?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tim and mike about a knock out vs. a message, I'm not sure if either is a good idea. Either one could prompt revenge from either syria or one of Syria's allies. Things can't go anywhere but downhill from there.
I'm not sure what exactly "good poltics" is, but getting involved in Syria without popular consent of the people (a recent poll shows a majority of americans against miltary action), international support, and the funds for the military action, government programs such as education and medicare, and not being trillions of dollars in debt is bad government.
While in many instances "good" politics can lead to "good" government decision I fear that this is not the case with Syria. While no child should be the victim of a civil war, the American government cannot single handed intervene with Syria. This is something the UN should be involved with not a nation with no direct threat from Syria.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kaitlin on her point that we should not get involved in Syria without international support. If we do involve ourselves with Syria and any retaliation occurs we are all alone. England and Germany already stated that they do not support us in this attack. This is just not a plight that America should involve itself with, especially when our own domestic policies need repair. -Rebecca Girardin
I would have to agree with Rebecca. I don't believe this is a matter for the US government to be handling, especially when the actions that the President proposed breaks international law. Though the US is a large world power, it is not our job to babysit other nations when things go awry. In my opinion, the so called evidence of the use of chemical weapons is not strong enough to make a rash decision to go bomb another nation. Not only would the proposed actions cause even more uprest in the middle east, but they would also cause friction between the US and Russia, who has lots of investments in Syria. This situation is too complex for the US to be getting involved in, while the murder of many innocent civilians is a tragedy, the US can not afford to continue to be the police force for the rest of the world.
DeleteI have to agree with Matt C. on this one--good politics as I see it is a politician compromising when he knows he is vastly outnumbered in opinion, and "compromise" apparently isn't in Obama's vocabulary here. If some form of compromise was to occur, I absolutely think good government would follow. A kind of compromise I would like to see is along the lines of what Rebecca is suggesting: possibly UN intervention using American troops.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that something MUST be done about Syria. This really is a humanitarian crisis--a few months ago, I was reading an article about Syrian families forced to live in Byzantine-era wells to keep themselves safe. The one benefit coming from this intervention debate, however, is that Americans are finally starting to become aware of this horrible civil war, and hopefully starting to care as well. While Americans were worrying about Kim and Kanye's baby and Taylor Swift's latest boytoy in recent months, innocent Syrians were dying by the day. It's time for America to realize that US Weekly doesn't report all the world's injustices.
I agree with Ryan and Rebecca. Syria is in the midst of a civil war and any intervention should be left up to the United Nations, not the United States. By bombing Syria, the US would be breaking international law and involving themselves in a civil war that is not a direct threat to America. In this case, bad politics, in the form of President Obama aversion to compromise, could very well lead to bad government.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rebecca that good politics does not make for good government policy concerning Syria. Although it is helpful to listen to a conservative opinion on an issue and a liberal one, this is an issue that needs to be based off American interests, not politics.
ReplyDeleteIn some of the videos it was discussed that Obama wants to attack Syria in order to "save face". Despite all the media and opinions circulating Obama's actions, Congress needs to seriously think about how the attack will affect American lives. The members of Congress need to push past the politics and think about if the attack is necessary or not.
In the last video the cost of the attack was discussed. An attack on Syria would cost BILLIONS of dollars. Is America ready to put up that kind of money to intervene in a foreign country's civil war? If there is enough proof of the Assad regime using chemical warfare against its own people then the United States should attack with the help of other countries. We should not be the only ones getting involved when Syria broke international law.
-Tara Tardino
I would agree with Rebecca when she said that good politics cannot lead to good government in Syria. This is because every politician is just trying to push their views and reject every other opinion on the subject. If instead of discussing what we should do to retaliate, we should attempt to find out who actually used the chemical weapons, maybe then a decision could be made. If the United States and UN cannot come to a conclusion, the US has no right to do anything. If the US attacks, and the wrong people are attacked, the United States then looks like the bad guy. It looks like the United States just wanted to show their military strength. However if we can say for sure that the government did this and we know where the weapons are stored, then action should be tacken. The United States should then make the government give up the weapons, if they will not then force should be used so these weapons cannot be used on anybody.- Jeremy Dreyer
ReplyDeleteGenerally, good politics can lead to good government if the idea of compromise finds its way into the picture; its noticeable absence in this situation is the source of many problems. President Obama should not have boldly stated how he's "not going to wait for Congress" to act on his ideas (not just with Syria, but in general) because his words have now created a noticeable divide. As Dan and Katie pointed out, America's involvement in this incredibly complex situation would cause more harm than good, and it seems as though Obama is more set on making a point than realizing what's better for our country's interest.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do agree with Tim and Schulte; this problem can't be ignored. When citizens are subjected to such horrible conditions, action must be taken, but perhaps not by the US alone. As Schulte suggested, some sort of UN intervention could make a tremendous impact on the lives of these innocent Syrians.
Good politics is about the humanity and the reality of the situation, that sometimes the official predetermined rules, good government, may not have accounted for the current situation ideally. In other words, according to the official rules set up prior to now, the U.S. cannot and should not do anything about Syria, because the U.N. does not allow it, so Katie, would be right in the regard. But no amount of rules changes the fact that people were killed, and a horrible tragedy has occurred, no matter what lines, either Obama's or the U.N.'s Syrian government has or has not crossed. And it is good politics that we should not be acting a s a by stander and letting this happen. So while we have no authority to attack Syria, based on government, we do have an obligation to help these people based on politics. So I'm going to go ahead and fence sit on the "should we bomb Syria?" question, by stating that while I rule out sitting by and letting nothing happen, I also do not know for sure that the action we should be taking is bombing them, rather than looking into other options such as pleading our case to the U.N. and other world powers.
ReplyDeletei agree with Ryan in that America needs to become more aware of the disaster thats continuing to build up in Syria. I unfortunately believe that America will end up sending military force over to Syria because President Obama seems to be pushing towards the strike and right now it looks like he is holding all the cards. Although I believe something must be done in Syria, I don't think bombing any area is the way to solve a problem. This action only causes a negative reaction from other foreign countries. Once one bomb goes off, another one is bound to be sent the other way, leading to war. I agree with Katie in that Obama needs to back off and let the UN handle intervening with Syria and that bad politics can lead to bad government.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gabby that Obama is holding all the cards, but he has to play his cards right and act rationally on such a controversial issue. I especially agreed with Congressman Grayson when he said "Every time we see something bad in the world, we should bomb it," because if America acts hastily this is the type of reputation that will stick. Good politics will not and do not lead to good government decisions in a situation like this where the U.S. is acting alone with out the support of the U.N. I agree with the U.N. for not approving of an attack on Syria because for starters, where is this proof that it is the Syrian government and not Al Qaeda or dissidents using these chemical weapons. Bombing Syria would leave Syria vulnerable to being overtaken by more dangerous rule, such as that of Al Qaeda. What are we proving goes back to Obama playing his cards right because if we are only going to prove America as a powerhouse because we are helping and strengthening our allies by bombing Syria, do we have the right motives? With a tight budget and unclear motives as to what our benefit and Syria's benefit would be as a result of the bombings, good politics will lead to bad government and more chaos in our government and worldwide governments. I also wonder if Obama would've been so insistent to use military force before his 2012 campaign?
ReplyDeleteGood politics cannot lead to good government decisions because the question stands at why? Why would President Barack Obama want to intervene with Syria and start another major war between the United States and the Middle East. The first war, President Bush had a reason to send troops to Iraq because of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Syria had made no major threat to the United States or the United Nations. President Barack Obama says he has evidence against Syria on the "chemical attacks" but if he had proof wouldn't he show it to the other countries and the United Stations to state why he wants to declare war. I agree with Kaitlin about President Obama and Congress about how he has to hear their decision. In one of the videos, President Obama made it clear and he said " I don't want to wait for Congress!", "they take too long to make a decision!". By saying this, Barack Obama is making a clear statement that he wants to declare war with Syria, regardless of Congress's decision. The smart thing Obama should do is step up, be the leader and take the right action. He should make the better decision and his number one priority is to it discuss the situation with his cabin over and over. Then he should think about the effects of what will happen like going into debt, having no military assistance from other countries, and soldiers lives lost for fighting in a war with no cause.
ReplyDelete*United Nations
DeleteJenna brings up a fantastic question as to whether or not Obama would have acted this way during his first term. With all of the things that he has done to this country, for this country, he has definitely made a name for himself. After watching the videos, the arguments about America being a policeman, Obama's ideas remind me of Teddy Roosevelt's actions as the watchdog in the Caribbean. Many of those were controversial domestically and internationally and created some bad relations south of the border. Obama is not cutting the politics at all, unlike Roosevelt, he is speaking quite loudly and in many cases, outlandishly, while still carrying a big stick, or as Gabby put it, all the cards. At this moment, Obama's intentions are to bomb Syria. Is that the most ethical action to take? Is that the action that protects american interests above all other things? I do not 100% believe so. With his cowboy, vigilante-like impulses, I believe he is doing more harm than good by not only breaking UN law, but also potentially creating enemies that may defensively strike at us, on our homeland. At this particular stage in the game, Obama has not exercised good politics, and if he continues, he will not be leading a good government either. Action needs to be taken but a particular course needs to be settled on in congress using good, clean politics. I agree with Meghana and Schulte when they say that good politics will lead to compromises, but that is what our nation needs for this particular issue. Those good politics would hopefully result in a decision that would protect national interests above all other things while still staying within international law with the main objective of containing dissidents and chemical weapons.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jenna, good politics do not lead to good government. Decisions should be made based on what is best for the people, not for what political party you support. The president believes that bombing Syria is our best option, but is he really keeping America's best interest in mind? With such limited funds as a nation, his idea just does not seem logical. For a number of years the United States has been involved in conflicts in the Middle East, why escalate our already shaky foreign relations? The best option for America is to remain as we are and see if the situation escalates any further. President Obama needs to rethink his proposal and act based on what is best for our country. As Jenna said, good politics can only lead to bad government because the good of the nation is not, and should be, the first priority.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Tom when he mentions that it may not be the best thing to attack Syria. Although the administration as well as many other politicians say that they have "undeniable" evidence, who is to say that they aren't still wrong. We have not yet been presented this evidence, and if it doesn't exist that leaves us with the problem of bombing a country that was "innocent". While it is true that it was a tragedy that occurred, and that innocent people died for no apparent reason, I do not believe that this may be the best course of action. The US is very likely to choose the BGM-109 Tomahawk missile. It is extremely accurate and is rather hard to shoot down due to the small amount of heat emitted from it and the fact that it cruises at a fairly low altitude. With this in mind, we must look at the power of this missile. It produces a blast with the equivalent force of a thousand pound bomb. A thousand pound bomb creates a force (this is literally just the pressure from the blast) of 7-8 psi for a 100 ft radius. For another 50 ft, approximately 3 psi is produced. With a force of 7-8 psi, most people within the radius are killed (just from the pressure), and from 3 psi serious injuries are common and fatalities may occur. That doesn't even include the fiery blast that the missile creates, nor does it include the half a mile radius that fragmentation has which can be fairly lethal. So with the lethality and precision of this weapon in mind, one must ask the question: Can't civilians still be harmed in this assault? Why risk it to find out the answer to that question. The Syrian people have already gone through tragedies by the hands of those who have powerful weapons, so why should they suffer more casualties. There needs to be some action taken, however I believe that bombing a country with the possibility of harming the very people we are attempting to protect is out of the question.
ReplyDeleteSo no, good politics don't always lead to good government due to the fact that politicians often forget about the consequences of their actions.
DeleteI do not believe that good politics make good government. In today's government, politics dictate what goes on whether it be on the local, state, or national level. Political parties are halting progress in our nation and voting has come down to allegiance to a political party rather than the voter's beliefs. If politics haven't come as far as they have, I think the government would be more efficient and make more progress at a more rapid pace. -Thomas deLuca
ReplyDeleteGood politics have never made good government. They force men & women in power to jump through hoops to get their point across. In the case of Syria, Obama has been criticized for not having taken a stern enough approach to the crisis in Syria. Truth be told, yes, the President had set a red line several months back saying that if the Assad regime were to use chemical weapons of any kind, the United States would strike. Now, he is delaying that strike. Politicians from both sides have said that he is going back on his word, yet if he had gone ahead with the strike without Congressional approval or a majority in a public-opinion poll, he would've been tagged as taking advantage of his power. The politics of it all make it so there is no right way to go about the situation. Whatever path is chosen, there will be a group of people that claim it was the wrong direction to go in. The hesitance these criticisms can spawn can be harmful to informed decision-making, causing it to be molded around a popularity-poll or a chance at re-election (Obviously not in this case however) rather than over what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs to what Joe said, that the evidence is still not "undeniable..." Although Syria still denies government involvement in the sarin gas attack, nobody is denying that sarin was used. The site where these chemical attacks took place was also the site of government shellings, of which Syrian-military non-classified intel reports show was a rebel stronghold. Reports of opposition being killed at these locations are confirmed by the Syrian government. The Assad regime may deny that they used sarin there, but they had no way of denying that the village that was gassed was a strong rebel location. The regime's claim that the rebels were behind the attack is almost shot dead from the start. And if it wasn't the rebels, there aren't many other suspects other than the regime itself. The evidence that the government won't show us is what is classified. There is plenty of non-classified evidence that is available for everyone to find.
I agree with Rebecca and Dan in that the United States really has no business getting involved in a Syrian civil war. There is far too much that the government would be risking if they went ahead with the attack that President Obama is so adamant about. I do see Obama's reasons for wanting to "send a message" to Syria and other countries as well that they can not violate international policy and get away with it. However, there would more than likely be retaliation from Syria and that would put not only American citizens in danger but also our allies. This issue at hand is so complex and in my opinion, Obama is being reckless in his decision and has not properly weighed the possible repercussions and consequences that would result in sending Syria this message he speaks of. Also, if Congress does approve this attack, I would hope that the government would provide the American people with a little more reassurance or proof that Syria did in fact commit this large scaled crime. In this complex situation, especially, good politics does not make for good government. Another thing to keep in mind is that Obama's need for urgency and his inability to "wait for congress" raises some red flags. Why must a decision this important that takes much deliberation be made right now? President Obama's impatience is perhaps an indication that there is more subject to the matter than we know.
ReplyDeleteOverall I would have to agree with Rebecca and say it is not the best idea to bomb Syria. While it is sad that thousands of people are losing their lives every single day, only more lives will be lost by bombing. In this situation good politics does not make for good government. It would be good politics to bomb Syria and punish them for the mass production and use of hazardous chemicals. It would be good politics to send a message to other countries that this is not going to be tolerated. It would be good politics by making the U.S. look good, it shows we want to protect people. On the other hand, this also makes for a bad government. It's bad government when the effects on Syria begin to affect the U.S. financially. It's bad for the government because it puts a target on the back of the United States from many middle east countries. As said by Congressman Grayson, "The United States is not the police force for the world." The job of world police force has already been taken, by the United Nations. Once the United Nations come back with sound conclusions that it was in fact hazardous chemicals, then we can attack under the protection of the United Nations. Waiting for permission from the U.N. will prove to be beneficial to the United States because it still shows that we did the right thing. Many people view politics and government as synonyms, in this situation they are completely different.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan that intervening with Syria will only cause the United States to become a target for the middle eastern countries. Many Americans do not support the idea of American soldiers going back into combat especially after fighting over a decade in those countries for the efforts on the War on Terror. President Obama had previously stated that if chemical weapons were being used in Syria, he would give the command to intervene. However, after having proof that they were used, he then waited quite a while for congress to go back into session so he can get permission from them even though he would be able to send the command himself due to his respected title of "Commander in Chief". He then felt pressure from the political parties because of that decision to wait after already stating what he would do in the situation. Good politics does not make for good government decisions because politics can fog up the true meaning of the problem and it will cause a lack of focus on the correct solution to the problem.
DeleteI agree that the united states will become a target for middle eastern countries if we do choose to intervene in Syria. I feel the government needs to put political differences aside and work hard to form a deal with Russia which would allow the UN to acquire the weapons being used and stop the deaths of political dissidents in Syria. We need to disregard which country would get the recognition in a possible deal and focus on stopping more deaths from occuring.
Delete"I agree with Rebecca and Ryan, and pretty much everyone that said something similar to what they said. In this situation with Syria, "good" politics does not lead to "good" policy. In the second video, they briefly discussed that this "knockout punch" is not to change the regime; It's to send a message to the enemies of the United States, all of which are sitting on the sidelines silently hoping that we decide to go with our traditional isolationist policies and leave Syria alone. While I do agree that sending a message might be somewhat effective in showing our enemies like, "Hey you! See what we just did? Yeah. Don't mess with us," I do not think that it's in our best interest at all, mainly because, as a bunch of my classmates earlier pointed out: taking action would be against international law. Bombing one messed up country just to send a message to other messed up countries that pose a threat to us is not okay (in this case) because it wouldn't be in self defense, therefore making it internationally illegal. If the U.N. racks up enough evidence to "paint a better picture" of who was behind the sarin attacks (whether it was the rebels or the regime) and wants to take action then fine! But it's THEIR problem, not ours. Until the U.N. looks at everything and decides what to do, we (well...Obama) need to just take a deep breath and a step back, and chill with the bomb threats. If the U.N. decides to take action in the near future and needs our help to do so, that's fine, but until then I think we should just relax."
ReplyDeleteOkay, hope this works for now and maybe we can sort out the problem tomorrow in or after class, or at extra help at some point this week. Thanks.
-Taylor Scibilia
I believe that President Obama is handling this issue properly by seeking congressional approval and not just exerting his power as commander in chief. However, congressional approval is not enough to justify an American intervention in Syria. The UN security council was established to prevent worldwide conflict, it is quite hypocritical of the United States to ignore the international policy that it helped create after WWII. Also, the Russian news report views American intervention as us trying to intimidate our enemies, much like Tom's mention of Teddy Roosevelt's big stick policy. Actions like this could lead to completely avoidable retaliations against the United States on our own soil. I also agree with Danielle about how politics blur informed decision making. If this issue was to be decided on mere politics, the United States would face a difficult future and another conflict. The government should follow all international policy when making their ultimate decision on the issue. Even though we can't be the world's police force, we are still seen as one of the world's leading nations, and need to set precedents for the future.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that good politics does not always make for good government decisions. President Obama has not presented any solid proof that the Syrian government has in fact used harmful chemicals on their people. I can understand how President Obama wants to protect the Syrian people from their government but bombing Syria by ourselves is not the answer. Until proof is revealed, I don't see any immediate reason to bomb Syria. We have already been involved in wars in the Middle East recently with too many American soldiers lives lost. Unless there is agreement between several countries to get involved we should avoid it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jack that the president is right in seeking congressional approval but that it is not enough to justify American intervention. Good politics can lead to good government if the there is a specific threat to American national interest and the President is concerned more with the threat of Syria's allies and protecting our ally Israel. This would no doubt be a threat but there still is no proof. Bombing our enemies is too drastic a solution until solid evidence is produced and even the the President should not be too hasty with this decision.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natalie that President Obama is too focused on protecting our ally Israel. I think we must step back and take a minute to think of all of the consequences of getting involved in another war in the middle east. In this matter, good politics does not lead to good government. Although what happened in Syria was a horrible tragedy, we cannot just go in and bomb Syria. That would not solve the matter. Yes, we would be showing the world that we are a power country, but we would just be killing more lives in the process. I strongly believe the United States should not get involved in the Syria matter without the United Nation's authorization. Furthermore, the American public have not seen any actual proof that it was the Syrian government that used chemical weapons. If the evidence is doubtful, we cannot act immediately.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that good politics make for good government, it puts a lot of pressure on the President to make decisions such as an attack on Syria that will have consequences such as domestic terrorism or other forms of hurting the US that he may have overlooked if he rushes this decision. I also agree with Tom S in that this is a similar to TR and how he used the military to intimidate the enemies of the United States. By trying to send a crippling blow as mentioned in the 2nd video as a "knockout punch", or "sending a message" it may look like to the US is merely using its power to not try and save Syria but to wipe out the threat while hurting other innocents who are in the way. That would make the attack immoral, and the US would be ridiculed because it's not self defense and goes against UN policy.
ReplyDelete-Tim Woods
Although I disagree with Tim's assertion that a punitive strike against the Syrian regime would be "immoral," I agree with his belief that politics has too great an impact on the government's decision making process. The government should make decisions that are in agreement with American ideals and are in the best interest of the American populace and the nation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, the American military had a much greater international presence and essentially acted as a global police force. This is no longer the case, however, as international organizations such as the UN have shouldered the burdens of maintaining peace in the world. While a multilateral approach to foreign interventionism is often an effective system, it does not always function properly when put into practice. Why is this the case? Politics. Since the UN Security Council can only act under a unanimous resolution approved by all five permanent member nations, the impact of political disagreements is amplified significantly. As such, Russia, a permanent member nation of the UN Security Council with economic ties to Syria, was able to block the UN from taking action. There is not surprising considering the fact that Russia thoroughly enjoys placing the United States in awkward, uncomfortable situations; consider the debacle concerning Edward Snowden, for example.
Without support from the UN, launching an attack on Syria would cause the Obama Administration to be pasted by political opponents for acting in a "unilateral" manner. As Tim stated, politics has placed enormous pressure on the President; he will be criticized if he chooses to act and, due to the fact that he voiced strong support for a limited engagement early in the political process, he will be labeled as "weak" or "indecisive" if he elects not to attack Syria after all.
Is is therefore apparent to me that the complex web of politics is diverting the American government's view from what should be its main objective: protecting its interests. As a nation that works to maintain global stability, it is not in our interests to allow other nations a free pass to perpetrate atrocities against mankind. If we turn a blind eye to what is taking place in Syria, other unstable nations, such as North Korea and Iran, may view such a decision as tacit approval for them to violate basic human rights. Therefore, it is crucial that the United States keep politics in perspective and follow through with its original promise of retaliation against the Assad regime. Cruise missiles or drone strikes could get the job done without putting American troops in danger. Provisions would need to be made, of course, to reduce collateral damage.
In the words of Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Henninger, a vote for nonintervention would essentially "bench Uncle Sam." In our increasingly complex world, we cannot afford to remove ourselves from foreign affairs.
-Joe F
Period 7
I agree with most of the comments above that invading and bombing Syria would be the wrong decision. The American government is based off of checks and balances yet President Obama is trying to pressure Congress into consenting to his plan. The United States' allies will not back our military up and the UN, which should be in charge of international situations such as this, also will not support Obama's plans to invade Syria. Many groups and nations in the middle east are already against the United States and if Obama advances with his plan, it will undoubtedly backfire by infuriating Syria and its allies and possibly placing American citizens in danger. Not only would America citizens be in danger, but innocent people of Syria would be put in extreme danger. The is no way to tell exactly who is in the location that Obama wants to bomb, there could be innocent men, women and children whose lives will be altered if not ended through no fault of their own. America has no place to make the decision to invade Syria during its civil war.
ReplyDeleteLike Tara, I believe that a strike on Syria by United States forces would be both potentially harmful to the people of both the U.S. and Syria, as well as a blatant disregard for the International Law that the United States has "protected" since the forging of the U.N.
DeleteSince the fall of the economy into recession in 2008, the United States has not shown the signs of quick recovery. We owe near-immeasurable sums of capitol to the likes of China and Russia. I do not see the targeting of Syria by the Obama Administration as a random occurrence; one driven solely by the desire to prevent inhumanity wherever it shows face. The United States has had many opportunities to punish other dictatorships who break moral bindings to hurt their own people as a rouse to maintain power-- North Korea is a key example. The United States has calculated its target as Syria very precisely.
Syria, a nation supported by both Russia and China, is the cornerstone for Russian-European trade and both Chinese and Russian oil-needs. Also supported by Iran, Syria is basically a nation that the U.S. would love to see disappear. So, Obama has planned to conduct "limited" air assault on Syria; though this concoction is veiled in ambiguity. If Obama does give the directions to strike(, breaking U.N. code in doing so), he would most likely cut off key Syrian military bases and hangers that are used to aid the Syrian regime in suppressing the pressure of its rebellion. This could potentially result in a similar situation as Libya when Obama sent some-200 missiles that resulted in the suffocation of the dictatorship in Libya, though less direct. This would no doubt result in the unnecessary deaths of even more Syrian innocents.
But the threat of Iran, China, and Russia bring the danger to the average U.S. citizen. All three have warned the U.S. of "catastrophic consequences" if the U.S. bombs Syria. With three nuclearly-capable nations against the United States, true devestation could be the result of what might as well be the flexing of the U.S.'s guns, so to speak.
I ask you, as I wish I could ask Obama; would you risk the well-being of the United States and our allies to take out a foreign dictatorship that is just as cruel as every other dictatorship that ever existed, but one that isn't necessarily significant? I say no-- I say wait for U.N. judgement and the deal with Russia not for appeasement, but for insurance.
-James Markey
I agree with Tim that good politics does not make for a good government. Although Obama stated that he will seek congressional approval, there is still no clear evidence that justifies America's intervention with Syria. Right now the government is saying there is proof to the matter, but saying and doing are two different things. Unless the United States government shows the people clear evidence, we should not go into Syria alone. I also agree with Jaclyn with the point that we should not get involved with Syria without authorization from the United Nation's. If we go into Syria alone, we will cause more trouble with the Middle East, which would then escalate the already existing conflicts we've had with the Middle East for the past decade. It seems as though sometimes the officials of our nation feel it is our duty to protect those within other countries, but after a long battle on the War on Terror, I believe it is time for our nation to step back and evaluate our role as a leading nation and protect our nation's safety.
ReplyDelete- Jacqui Finston
I agree with the preceding comments because i feel that attacking Syria will only do more harm than good. If the US attacked Syria then it would cause a partial world war, with Russia defending their only warm water port. Like Michelle I feel that Obama has good intentions, but it cannot be implicated alone. I also agree with Florida rep Alan Grayson and feel that bombing Syria would only be a detriment to the American economy. I also agree with jacqui that good politics does not make for good government. I feel that we should let the U.N. come up with a unanimous plan to handle Syria and should not try and take charge of the situation alone.
ReplyDelete-Kristina Giordano
I agree with Jacqueline and Kristina on this, the United States has absolutely no authorization and therefore no right to attack Syria. The way Obama is talking about Syria is as if he is trying to prove some sort of point that he is not an idle president. He is trying to do something that the people of the United States, that people in Congress, do not want to do. He has blatantly stated that if possible he would ignore Congress and go to war without even asking or notifying them. I understand he said he doesn't want to start a war so no boots will hit the ground, but does he understand what that means? To me, it seems as though he wants to initiate an act of terrorism on Syria. He wants to go in, bomb innocent people to incite ////fear//// and then leave. America has had two very significant experiences with terrorism, one very happened very recently and is still fresh on the minds of many, if not all, Americans. Shouldn't we know best of all what this feels like and how it effects us as human beings? I don't think that war or indiscriminate bombing is the right choice. The US needs to sit down calmly with the UN and discuss a way to approach Syria's regime and find out the true facts of what happened. If the Syrian regime invited UN inspectors to prove that it was not them, they obviously are trying to be open with discussions to prevent war. Of course there is always the possibility that they are hiding these weapons, but if there is no concrete proof that the president is willing to show to us and the rest of the world, then he has no right to make such a judgement call without the approval of the other UN nations.
ReplyDelete