"I for one think that, at the very least, air strikes on key Syrian government positions are necessary to show the {world's} despotic little dictators that we will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons."Wait, what? Will, you were doing so well! The problem here is that we can't just attack countries because they annoy us. Then we would be abusing our power and our military prowess, which we don't have because Obama cut the military budget.
Which brings me to another point: we don't have any money or men, which is essential to starting a war, or just being in one. Why don't we have these things? Why don't you ask our President, who cut our military budget?! Plus, we still have soldiers coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. Like I said, we have no men, and no money.
Also, Will is talking about essentially making an example out of the Syrian government to show "despotic little dictators" who's boss. First of all, isn't that something that Bashar Al-Assad might do? I for one, refuse to turn into Syria. Secondly, we cannot continue to bully other countries into doing what we want, regardless if what we want is for them to follow correct morals. This is why other countries don't like us.
Will, I appreciate the fact that you came up with an original idea for your classroom response, but there were some flaws.
I think Will was making a good point. We aren't attacking a country because they annoy us, we'd be attacking a country because they used lethal chemical weapons on their own people! We wouldn't be turning into Syria for standing up against what is wrong. Syria is the bully who's killing their own people, if the United States stepped into help, we would be saving innocent people from getting killed by their own government just because they don't agree with what Bashar Al-Assad says.
ReplyDeleteCounter Response here http://thedovahkiinoflegend.blogspot.com/2013/09/counter-response-to-brigit-stakelum.html. Font was weird, sorry.
ReplyDelete