09/01/2013 Constitution/Branches of Government (Unit)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/02/obama-faces-renewed-international-opposition-on-syria-while-trying-to-win-us/
President Obama now has some bigger problems of international opposition concerning taking military action against Assad in Syria. After trying to convince Russia with evidence that the Syrian government is using chemical weapons on it's citizens, Russia replied by saying the evidence was, "absolutely unconvincing". A spokesman from China also spoke opposing the US acting alone against the Assad. The only support the United States have is from France. Obama and his administration are also furiously working to gain support in Congress for military action. If needed Obama can use his presidential power and authority to initiate retaliatory strikes without Congress support. The vote is split right now and the President needs every vote he can get.
In my opinion, I think that the President really needs support from other nations before taking action, and if we are going to take action we need to focus on removing Assad from power. According to the Geneva Convention it is illegal for ones government to attack its' own people, and with the use of chemical weapons is really pushing the line. If the evidence is accurate then I believe that we need to take military action; however, only with Congresses approval. I believe it would be a huge mistake for the President to not have his own countries support and go for it. President George W. Bush made this mistake recieved very negative publicity for it. If we don't go take care of the "bully" (Assad) though, then he will continue to hurt his own people. All of this makes for a very sticky situation with consequences either way you go.
This goes back to us talking about the United States as the "Policeman". Just posing a question, but is it right for us to enforce our values onto other countries and cultures, especially without having any backing from anyone (apart from France, apparently). Where does the line split between what is morally our right and duty to do as a country more successful than many others and when it becomes an infringement upon the other countries to become what they want to be. I think the United States has this blind attitude where it's either Democratic or Demonic. We've created this Us(haha, get it? Us? U.S.?)--them scenario. You're either with us or against us. And, if they are against us, then we need to change that. In this case, are we treading across the line to where it has become too much of an intrusion? Or would it be morally wrong for us to sit this one out?
ReplyDeleteA military strike on Syria seems inevitable by now and even though Obama does not need congressional approval of such action he has shown willingness to compromise, and listen and to allow congress to debate the topic. I like, and agree with your thought that America needs more support from its own allies, as it was quite a reputational blow when Great Britain did not give support to the U.S. until further information came out confirming such abhorrent attacks, but in an interesting twist the Arab League of Nations has fully supported Obama, and are all calling for a strong deterrent against Assad, but behemoth Russia's backing Syria on this one and isn't pleased with Obama judging from early reports tracking the progress of the G20 Summit held in Russia.
ReplyDeleteMadeline, there are two different reasons why the U.S. could be "policeman", and you only address one of them--the desire to push democratic ideals and positive economic changes on other countries. However, you failed to address the other reason, which is more relevant to this situation. In this case, we would be "policing" a clear infringement on human rights. It has been agreed upon by the world as a whole as violating international law. It has nothing to do with us trying to "enforce our values on other countries and cultures". We are trying to protect other humans from mistreatment through the use of inhumane weapons.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am glad we have reached a diplomatic solution to this.
It's not some much that I'm addressing as to the reasons WHY we have declared ourselves the Policeman, I am simply wondering what gives us the right to? It's not that I believe or disbelieve that we should allow these things to continue, I am simply trying to explain that there is a fine line between Policeman and Tyrant. We may be in this for a good reason this time. What we are doing may even be justifiable and good (to use the word vaguely). But where comes the point that we have gone to far? Not everyone shares the same beliefs as America. Heck, America doesn't share the same beliefs as America. So when does it cross from being us stepping in to protect human rights, to us using that as an excuse to take more control?
ReplyDeleteAnd one more quick though, us using inhumane to be humane... Is that right? Murdering murderers? Is that okay. Just want to know your thoughts, I already know mine.
ReplyDeleteAm I allowed to post a link to my blog as a response? Is that super pretentious? I think it is. But I do address at least some of these concerns in my first blog post. And sorry if it is hard to read. I was too lazy to make it anything other than blindingly white.
ReplyDeleteThis situation seems like a very grey area right now. Because we don't know exactly what Assad is doing to his people, it is hard to make a decision on whether the United States should intervene. But I think that if we found out that Assad was extensively using chemical weapons to kill his people and a large majority of people in Syria wanted help, then the US should intervene in some way. If we have the ability to help an oppressed people that wants and needs help, then we should help.
ReplyDeleteI think Jason nailed it. This is not so much an issue of if our governmental system is better, or if our beliefs are better and should be imposed. Jason was right to say that if we have the ability to help an oppressed people then we should help. I think first and foremost diplomacy should be used at all cost. But when all of that fails, do we let innocent people die? If you saw someone getting beat up in an alleyway, say, for instance, a father beating a child (government beating its people), would you walk past and say, "Well, I don't want to impose my beliefs on him. I better not intervene."? Is that moral? I don't like the idea any more than anyone else of killing someone, but to stand back and let a government destroy its people through chemical warfare is completely immoral, and not justifiable.
ReplyDelete