Wednesday, August 28, 2013
America, Syria, Chemical Weapons
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/08/america-syria-and-chemical-weapons?zid=308&ah=e21d923f9b263c5548d5615da3d30f4d ... Due 6 Sep 2013. What are the "backend costs" of going going into Syria? Analyze the situation with some cost-benefit analysis and discuss what we will give up to bomb Syria? What will be our benefits??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello I am here....it's working....
ReplyDeleteI understand that there are innocent women & children being killed but unfortunately there are bigger things at stake. If we bomb Syria, then we run the risk of Syria's allies Russia & Iran declaring war on the US. But, if we leave Syria alone then Assad will kill all of his people. On the contrary i'm sure we do not want another Vietnam or another Somalia in a sense. I think in my opinion if we bomb Syria then we will have WW3, if we don't then we watch thousands if not millions of people killed by the hand of Assad.. Its a hard choice!
ReplyDeleteI don't think attacking Syria will made any difference because of what happened. President Obama on the article says that using a chemical weapon to kill is a red line for him. Although, the chemical weapons or gas had killed thousands of people, I don't think bombing Syria is the solution. I think that in the future we should just try to prevent it from happening.
ReplyDeleteWe have no business in Syria to be honest. Yes people are dying and it is from thier own government, but people in america have similiar struggles everyday.There are problems and people who have been ignored for so long in this that to help anywhere else would to be mutalating then from our country. We can't let our own people suffer before we others who are suffering, otherwise there is a good chance that both countries will suffer. As long as Syria keeps its conflict in Syria then there should be no reaction by the american government.
ReplyDeleteHundreds of people have died from chemical attacks in Syria by the Assad regime. However, bombing Syria could lead us into a World War 3. If we decide to bomb Syria before the UN finishes their investigation then we are giving up our allies in Britain and other countries who want to hear what the UN has to say before taking action. Also, some drawbacks are that Russia and China don't want us to do it and may take action towards the US, and Iran stated that if we bomb Syria, they will attack Israel. Although, bombing Syria could stop the death of thousands if not millions of lives, I don't feel it is the appropriate approach given the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that it is in our best interest to bomb Syria. Yes, usually the United States is the peace maker among countries, but bombing Syria-especially without the UN's approval, might cause some strain between us all. It is a horrible thing that innocent people are being killed and then for us to see videos and want to take action, but bombing them to make things right will only put a target on our back and our allies. I feel that we need to talk with the UN and decide together what we should do about Syria. We have to look at this situation in every way that we can before we do something that we may regret.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that we should enter Syria. Doing something this drastic without the UN’s approval will only cause more problems. Bombing Syria will cost us money and resources that we do not have. Obama himself is indecisive on this subject and although he feels that going into Syria is the right thing to do, he realizes it may not be in our best interest. The only benefits in this situation would be potentially helping the rest of the Syrian civilians, but that is not certain. Bombing a country will not only hurt the enemies, but innocent people as well. We also should not forget about what they will do in response against any attacks we make against them.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the U.S should enter Syria. Though the benefits of going into Syria would mean that thousands of lives are saved from the Assad regime and that America does not look weak, the costs of entering Syria outweigh the benefits. The U.S and President Obama are facing heavy Criticism from world leaders, especially Russia and China who have openly opposed U.S strikes in Syria. Striking Syria would lead to more tension between the countries which could possibly lead to another war. A war against China and Russia would have devastating effects on the U.S and world economy. It also would inevitably lead to a greater loss of lives than what would be lost if the U.S did not intervene. In addition, entering Syria and starting a war would further destabilize the Middle East. This would lead to more Anti-American feelings in more countries towards the U.S.
ReplyDeleteThe backend costs would relate to the issue of poison gas involving Saddam Hussein in 1988. The use of poison gas back then was not an issue for America to interfere because they were in alliance with Bush, but because Assad is not in alliance with Obama they have the proclaimed “right” to step in. The actual cost would have to be the negative feedback that leans toward America by other countries with their decision and finances to carry out such an operation. Using cost-benefit analysis, the cost would be the financial aspect of bombing Syria plus the risk of causing more chaos between the Assad regime. The benefit would be saving innocent civilian lives in Syria from inhaling poisonous gas due to inhumane reasons. In order to follow through with this bombing we will be putting a target on our backs for Assad to attack if he pleases. Overall the costs outweigh the benefits in this particular situation.
ReplyDeleteCost-benefit analysis contributes to the economic decision in deciding whether or not to go into Syria because the backend cost of the decision would ultimately be the expenses and threat after the bombing from Syria. We will be giving up precautionary measures as we bomb the land as to whether or not they retaliate afterwards, the resources needed to carry out such a task, and the lives of the innocent civilians in the area. The actual benefits that we will receive ought to be the termination of unnecessary use of poisonous gases in Syria and checking Assad in his decision makings as a ruler.
ReplyDeleteLooking at our current situation, i believe this is going to be a tough decision. First off, the United States isn't as economically sound as we would like to be. We are in a recession and we have a huge debt hanging over our heads. The only benefits we would receive from bombing Syria would not be material. We would receive the moral high ground for saving innocent people from death by poisonous gas. The costs on the other hand, are dangerous. Syria is allies with some of the United States' biggest threats, one of which being China, who holds most of our national debt. Speaking of the debt, where are we going to get the money to deploy our troops to yet another country just as things were starting to resolve in the middle east. the biggest cost in my opinion is the pure financial price of war. Also, initiating an attack on Syria would leave the US vulnerable to retaliation from Syria or one of their bigger friends. We don't need Americans to die on our own soil. In my opinion, we should sit this one out. We need to fix our own problems before we go sticking our noses into someone else's. I get it, we have saved multiple other countries in the past. But this time, i believe there will be too much at stake by starting another war. If this bombing actually happens, it may possibly cause a chain reaction that will sink the United States into a deeper, and less forgiving hole than it already is in.
ReplyDeleteI believe that America shouldn't bomb Syria. If we bomb Syria, Iran would be inclined to take action. Although they most likely won't attack us directly, they will probably attack one of our allies, like Egypt. Egypt's military strength is not equivalent to ours and they will suffer a considerable amount of losses. Not just that, but the USA is in a huge hole of debt. If the USA were to bomb Syria, it would also have to protect its allies which it might not be able to do without entering a bigger hole of debt.
ReplyDeleteThe US is not in the state to go into war. Yet, we can not sit back and watch millions of innocent lives die. The cost will outweigh the benefits, which is saving those innocent people. If we bomb Syria we will not only kill the enemies in the country but the innocent ones as well. The US is in a national debt, that if we do decide to go into Syria, we will burry ourselves even deeper than we are. Right now we are already fighting in different soil, and we can't expand ourselves too thin. If we try to pose as a hero, the situation might worsen. Therefore we should approach the issue in a different manner.
ReplyDeleteMany innocent people are at risk and we as the U.S are in no type of conditions to go into war! The Cost-benefit here is that, we get security and safety if we do not go into war, but many innocent children and men and women are getting killed for no reason at all. And if we do go into war to help the rest of the people, we are going to be in danger, and we have no part of it! So should america intervene? yes and no, reason being, we might all get killed!, and the other is that we're just here sitting, while thousands of innocent people and kids are dying, its a heart breaker, but we need to think about our safety as well and the safety of our children and our lives!, this is a really big situation, and there is many things that could go wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, US should not get involved with Syria's problems. If we get involved with this conflict, we would be helping the rebels, who have links with terrorist organizations. I heard on the news that US forces could be aiding Al Qaeda and Hezbollah if we went in. And if other countries become involved, China, Russia, Iran, it could escalate into a conflict worse than World War II. If we went into Syria and it becomes a decade long war like Iraq, then it could devastate our economy, because there is no money coming back to American institutions, just the defense industry. Also during wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, we lost people that didn't need to be in those wars. During the Korean War we lost 36,000 people over there and North Korea and South Korean became divided. Also, there was a draft back then, you as a male had to join the Army, if you wanted to or not. Then there was Vietnam and was a brutal war, we lost 58,000 people on our side and about a million Vietnamese people, at the end very little good came out of Vietnam. In other words, it escalated into other parts of Southeast Asia such as Cambodia, which was the cause of the Cambodian Civil War and the rise of the Khmer Rouge. And the wars within the last decade, sure we got rid of Saddam and Bin Laden, but there are still terrorists and dictators, if we get rid of one another grows. The only costs I could think of are us helping these poor, innocent lives and even prevent more chemical attacks from happening but in the end people it would cause people to die when they don’t need to. Furthermore, Syria's allies might become more proactive, and we could go to war with them as well.However,I do think the attacks on Syrian citizens need to stop, but it requires the rest of world to cooperate and put pressure on Assad.Thus,we would be putting too much at stake by stepping into Syria. Both,monetary costs and human lives, outweigh the benefits in this situation. Our economy can drastically suffer from a debt that we cannot pay off.
ReplyDeleteHow would the United States of America stop Syria from killing their people by sending bombs to kill their people? It seems illogical to send a bomb, by doing this we would be the ones to blame for starting World War III. We also need the resource for fuel to power our cars and heating. Bombing Syria would cause a major inflation. Gas prices would raise and so would everything else except people’s paychecks. I feel as if the United States should stay away from Syria because the United States entry in Syria would do nothing more but make us waist money that we do not have. We are already $16.7 trillion dollars in debt. We should focus our money more on renewable resources such solar power energy and wind power. Therefore we should stay away and keep our ground to our reputation.
ReplyDeleteEntering Syria and bombing them has its pros and cons. The backend cost is that The United States will attempt to help the innocent people from these harmful chemicals. But like they said in the article the US knew about Saddam Hussein in the late 1980 using these harmful chemicals and did nothing about it, so what has changed for them to now take a charge and do something about it. Using cost-benefit analysis, if we go and bomb Syria we will be helping the citizens and taking a stand to help, but also putting our country at risk. This could cause war and us endangering our allies which will cause more conflicts. I believe that it is in our best interest to not bomb Syria.
ReplyDeleteFrom my point of view, USA should not bomb Syria. I may sound naïve for saying this but I don't think violence is the answer. Honestly, violence will only bring MORE violence. President Barack Obama knows that himself, which is why he's still indecisive about the situation. I know USA is only trying to help but bombing Syria will not only hurt our enemies but also the innocent ones. Besides, does that resolve the problem? From what I know, not exactly. Also, best believe, they will get back at us, therefore we should be prepared for that. The point is not to ONLY think of the pros of BOMBING SYRIA but to think of the cons as well. God bless America!
ReplyDeleteThe US should not enter Syria. The costs really outweigh the benefits here. The benefit of the US bombing Syria is that it will prevent the future use of chemical weapons. With the US going in and stopping Syria because of the use of chemical weapons it will defer other countries from using them, knowing that we will stop them. However, the cost is that we will have to waste our resources on something that doesn't really involve us. We will have to spend more money on creating the bombs and that would put us into even more debt. And through the US attacking Syria, Russia, their ally could get involved and plan to attack us which could escalate into a war and put the US into more debt.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the U.S should enter in to Syria, now i am not saying we should trun a blind eye to the situation but going to war with Syria will cause more harm then good to this country it may cause problems with they allies and ours, and i don't think bombing Syria without the support of the U.N is a good idea, I don't think we are in the economic state to go into another war and we just got out of a war.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that we should attack Syria. I understand that innocent people are getting killed, but we are ending up with more on our plate. The costs outweigh the benefits; by attacking Syria we are going to go even more into debt than we are now. The only thing we're benefiting from is putting an end to the chemical gases being used to kill people, but there are still thousands of woman and children dead. We should focus on our problems such as gas prices and taxes before we go and try to solve other country's problems. Our country could be putting use to the resources being used to attack Syria. We will most likely be the ones to blame for starting World War 3, we don't even have the UN's approval.
ReplyDeleteI believe the United States shouldn't intervene with Syria in terms of war. If the U.S. bomb Syria and take down the Assad regime, who would control the region? We (as in, the United States) run the risk of a terrorist organization taking control once Assad is defeated. The U.S. cannot afford the resources to support, defend, and maintain such a region considering its geographical location and benefits of having it, if any.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should not go into Syria. The United States has no business going into Syria. Yes the government is using chemical weapons on its citizens and it is very tragic but the United States cannot afford to go into another war. The last war put us into far to much debt and we lost many lives fighting in a war that we shouldn't have been in. Syria is also close with Russia and China, so if we end up going into Syria this could cause Russia and china to back up Syria and this war could turn into a third world war.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the U.S. should enter and bomb Syria. What is happening in Syria is happening in Syria and not the U.S. The cost-benefit in this situation is that if the U.S. does go and bomb Syria the U.S. will get a pat on the back for doing the “right thing” and helping innocent adults and children who are dying in Syria. However, the U.S. needs to consider the safety of its people and debt. It is not safe for the U.S. to bomb Syria because retaliation, most likely, will occur and endanger our troops. Another reason is the U.S. debt right now. We are willing to spend money to make these bombs and go into more debt, knowing we cannot afford at the moment. As written in the article, the U.S. knew about Hussein and his use of dangerous chemical weapons and did nothing so why do they want to help now?
ReplyDeleteMy opinion on this situation is that we should not interfere with Syria or bomb them, even if it is just for a certain amount of time. Many people who are agreeing with going into Syria only have one fact to justify their acts which is helping their citizens but what about US citizens, what about the rest of the world? If we interfere with Syria we are also interfering with Russia, which will cause a conflict with only the US but Israel one of our main allies. Russia has stated this about a week ago. If we bomb Syria they will bomb Israel. Obviously we will not stand back and watch we will do something which will cause a world war. A war could ultimately devastate our economy and be worse than maybe both of the world wars combined. Seeing as that Russia has many allies in the Middle East that will work together to protect Syria. The only allie we will have is Israel because England has backed out on the bombing and I don't see any of the other allies willing to risk their citizens and economy's to deal with one country. On the other hand the killing of innocent Syrian citizens are being killed and Assad could end up killing off his people which is wrong and I think something should be done but it's a tough choice. Is Obama willing to save one country from its leader and enter into a world war? Or let them or someone else help them? I think it a depends on how many other countries are willing to back us up and the long term consequences. - Mintallah Tahir
ReplyDeleteNo I personally don't think we should be involved with Syria. Bombing Syria because their President is harming his own people is not an excuse. We should fix our debt first, and then worry about helping other countries. Doing this will costs us weapons and resources that we don't have. This will put us more into debt, and leave our country in danger from an attack from Syria. When we went to war with Iran, our debt worsened and many people were killed from our country. The same thing will happen when we go to war with Syria. -Ivy Lee
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should not go into Syria. The costs really outweigh the benefits here. If we bomb Syria, then we run the risk of Syria's allies Russia & Iran declaring war on the US. Russia has stated this about a week ago. If we bomb Syria they will bomb Israel. Obviously we will not stand back and watch we will do something which will cause a world war. I don't think we are in the economic state to go into another war and we just got out of a war. We will most likely be the ones to blame for starting World War 3. LETS NOT START ANOTHER WAR!!
ReplyDeleteI've never being a supporter of war, of any kind, despite the reasons. However, all of us have a little compassion in us, which makes us human. Our country always feel as if it is our God given right to ensure the safety of others, to reach out and help the hopeless.Sometimes its best to let citizens of other countries fight for themselves instead of interfering in their affairs. I don't think we should bomb Syria because our costs will outweigh our benefits. getting involved with Syria will only benefit us in two ways. We may put an end to the use of chemical gases, and lift our status as being always the helping hand.On the other hand, we are going to spend a lot of money, send our armed forces and resources to Syria; things that we can never get back. We have a lot of debts and problems of our own that we need to resolve, especially in our economy. Instead of going into Syria and try to save them and provoke their allies, we should spend that money making our country more stable for our citizens. The damage that have already being done to Syria is irreparable, so we should let them find their way.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should go into Syria. The benefits really outweigh the cost here. If we bomb Syria, we prevent future chemical attacks. Chemical attacks are banned by the Geneva convention and it is our job to stop them. We already the weapons to attack them we wont need to buy new ones. the back-end cost of going in might be some destabilization in Syria and the benefits the new leaders might help us if we help them and we'll dispose of a cruel leader.
ReplyDeleteThe backend costs of bombing Syria would be the infamy that America will receive as well as the loss of innocent lives. Bombing Syria will make America appear as a corruptive nation and will increase the probability of attacks and problems with other countries such as Russia, who sympathizes with Syria. Utilizing cost benefit analysis, the actual cost of going into war will be financially. There will be a lot of money put into our troops making the country fall even more into depression; which we've been trying so hard to get out of. A benefit that we will receive will be the abolition of using such destructive methods of killing and the salvation of numerous of innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteI think in a situation such as what Is going on in Syria It is the u.s responsibility to step in to prevent the continuing lose of innocent lives. Even though there will be many economic costs on our end it would be well worth to help get a country that is in the midst of chaos get back on it's feet
ReplyDeleteThe u.s definitely needs to step in to Syria at this point. I think when something like this occurs where a country is killing it's own citizens especially especially with weapons designed to make people suffer, an outside force needs to interfere.even if we Wind up spending a lot of time and money in Syria the benefits of helping would far out weigh those costs.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not believe that the U.S should further it's involvement in Syria because in the end, the overall costs will outweigh the benefits. If the U.S becomes involved in Syria, this will most certainly serve to provoke and involve Syria's allies, Russia and Iran. Syria may bomb one of our Allies, which is most likely to be israel. The English have said that they will not aid us if we attack Syria. It might turn out to be a war that we cannot win. The benefits are the salvation of innocent lives, and a good U.S reputation. However, if we were to somehow lose our fight, the lives we fought to save may still be lost and we wouldn't be there to listen to what others have to say of our reputation.
ReplyDeleteAs bad as it sounds, I feel that the U.S should stay out of Syria because the cost outweighs the benefits. If the U.S intervenes it will damage internationals relations with other countries that support Syria and that's not we should want. It's the perfect setup for another world war. Also, I don't feel that it's necessary to step in & lose young American lives.. The U.S seems to feel like the big brother of the world & always has to intervene but for once we can't. If we attack Syria, Russia may attack little Israel so all in all it's a hard decision for Mr.Obama.. We can save a few lives in Syria or lose a bunch of young lives from here.
ReplyDeleteI do believe we should interfere with Syria and aide them in there current conflict. It may cost us a bit to do so but it is wise to go into Syria and assist them because its the right thing to do, and it may be beneficial because of possible resource opportunity in Syria. The united states needs to wise with there action because a another world war may arise from the actions of the US. Be cautious with all our decisions and make the decisions that would bring greatest peace and least amount of conflict possible.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not believe that the U.S. should interfere with Syria because despite them being in such a bad situation, the U.S. can barely take care of itself, so to spend money that we "don't really have" isn't so smart. Yes there may be beneficial factors, such as new found resources, the costs outweigh the benefits.
ReplyDelete