SYRIA
Our Question: Should the US get involved?
Our Question: Should the US get involved?
Our Answer:
Yes,the US should get involved because...
It is world wide everybody knows so when people do bad things. Other people should try to help he is KILLING people and that is not right. I think everybody should go against the Syrian President. Then I think he will stop because on that interview. Bashar Al-assad said “I don’t know what you are talking I have not killed anyone” I said yea right. The Syrian President should be brought down he is A DIRTY LIAR and he is a MURDERER. So not just the US but everybody should go against him.
Bashar Al-assad
if you can read this STOP KILLING PEOPLE AND STOP LYING
you are a BAD person.
Great start, folks!
ReplyDeleteHere are some clarifying questions for you -- my choice of the word "involved" is not clear. What would it mean for the US to "get involved"? Would that mean sending US troops? If not, how else could the US "get involved"?
If you think the US should get really involved, which would probably involve sending troops, how would those troops get in to Syria?
And if the US were to send troops, what would the mission be? Is it to kill the president of Syria? If you kill him, what happens next? And is it even legal under international law to kill the president of another country?
Yes, the SEALs killed bin Laden back in May of 2011, but he was not president of Afghanistan -- he was the leader of a multi-national organization called "Al Qaeda". He was the mastermind behind 9/11, so there was a component of self-defense, if you buy the argument that he and Al Qaeda were plotting to do more damage to the US.
Osama bin Laden was "shot and killed inside a private residential compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by U.S. Navy SEALs and CIA operatives in a covert operation ordered by United States President Barack Obama.." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden)
Did the US need Pakistan's permission to go in and kill bin Laden? It was a covert, or secret, mission -- which means if it were publicized, bin Laden presumably would have escaped, right? The SEALs got him in part because they caught him by surprise.
I just did some research, and it looks like bin Laden's killing, if it was intended to be a killing and not a capture, might be considered a "targeted killing," which is different from an assassination (people aren't sure whether the SEALs had orders to capture Bin Laden and they killed him only after he resisted, or whether the SEALS went in trying to kill him).
Here's a bit about targeted killings:
When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder, and is for that reason prohibited in the United States.... U.S. officials may not kill people merely because their policies are seen as detrimental to our interests.... But killings in self-defense are no more "assassinations" in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers. Targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government to fall outside the assassination prohibition.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination#Targeted_killing
This brings us back to the point that Shaunita made in post #1, where she wrote "they [meaning the Syrian government] did not do any thing to us".
But Shaunita also points out that "Also they are killing kids and I am a kid; that's not pretty." She says this as part of her argument for why the US should not get involved... but I wonder whether Syria's killing of kids might make the case more compelling that the US *should* risk American lives to stop the Assad regime and its murders.
This is complicated stuff, and you folks are doing a superb job wrestling with it!
Send me more questions when you get a chance...
You should check your paragraph because there were a few things wrong and other than that it was good.
ReplyDelete