http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/opinion/granderson-criminal-kids-responsibility/index.html This is a very controversial topic because parents decide how they want to raise their kids. They might not always turn out as perfect angels but what matters is how parents approach bad situations. No matter how the children behave the parents are responsible and what they say and how they react to the situation conclude what type of parent they are and how they raised their kid to act and react toward things.
I agree! I think how a child acts reflects back on the parents. I think every parent should teach their child common sense and responsibility. Even if you do grow up in a bad family, home, or neighborhood, you can still learn from those mistakes and set your personal standards for success even higher for your future. This article talks about how different factors contribute to how parents raise their children, like religion, but I think everyone knows that you don't kill someone just because you were bored. If you are bored, go read a book or update your Facebook status!
I disagree that it would be completely the parents fault as to how the child acts. The parents are not always completely in control of their children. If the kid doesn't want to follow a rule, they can and will disobey it. There are also other factors besides the parents that will influence against them, like people in the area where the child is growing up. Though, i'm sure the parents could do things to prevent things like this but that's not always the case.
I think Obama shouldn't "respond" towards Syria. If Syria continues to raise conflict then the president should take caution and be prepared to retaliate with the appropriate military action. I like how Rhode Island's Democratic Senator Jack Reed said “where this becomes a springboard for a general military option." But I believe the president should express caution, like congress, and wait for the appropriate timing.
I believe Obama should definitely have responded to Syria. The Syrian government is killing their own people. There is very little doubt that says they aren't. Our government should respond as quickly as possible to prevent this from happening again from a government that obviously doesn't care about their own people if they would use chemical weapons on them. The US and their NATO allies should invade Syria and protect the people from a government that could once again kill off their people . Although I believe the government should invade Syria, I also believe there should be a limit on how long the troops would be able to stay there. If the Syrian government does not see that we are serious about stopping them, then greater action should be taken.
This topic is extremely controversial to me and I am uncertain of what should be done. Should we be involved in another foreign war in a region where we may not be welcome? Should we stand by and watch the country go into peril and its citizens being killed by the existing government? It's a difficult decision between what's right for our country and what's morally right. We are currently helping Syria with medical, food and supplies for refugee shelters; just not military aid at this time. I believe we are doing the right thing by at least giving some aid instead of completely turning our backs on the suffering on the Syrian people. The tough decision still is in front of us with the President's promise to use military options if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons.
I don’t think Obama should respond to Syria. Yes they are in need of help, they are in a crisis, and they innocent Syrians are in distress, but this is not the U.S’s fight. We got involved in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq and I don’t think we got anything done in any of those places. In my opinion all that was accomplished in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq was death of American soldiers. I get that innocent people might be in danger but this is not the U.S’s fight and we’d be putting innocent solider in danger if we send them to Syria. It’s their fight, let them fight.
Although the United States has been involved in problems around the world it is not their responsibility to come to everyones aid. Wether the United States come to syrians aid or stays out of the attack on Syria is a very contriversial subject. I don't think it is right to risk our own American soldiers, for a fight that isn't ours to fight. I dont think the United States should get involved in Syria.
Whether or not it's "our" country shouldn't matter. We are all people. Syria is killing it's own people with chemical warfare, and that's wrong on all levels. Our borders are only an agreement. I am anti-war as it gets but if the Allies' involvement can save the lives of innocent people I think we should do what we can. Humanity's responsibility to care for one another. A casual reminder of the last time the United States' isolationism got in the way of saving lives: the Holocaust.
I am personally torn about this issue, it is important to stay out of conflict and not hop into every issue that nations have inside themselves and with other nations. We also can't let it seem like the use of chemical weapons can be allowed in warfare. We need to express our opinions without diving head first into this conflict. Also we should pay attention to the fact that we got threats from Russia and Iran in response to us thinking about taking up arms against the Syrian government, this should be a huge deterrent to enter this conflict.
I'm torn on this issue as well. This country doesn't need to become involved in another foreign war that doesn't really have anything to do with our country. Also, the United States hasn't been invited to help intervene with the Syrians attacks. There's the other side of the issue and that's the innocent lives being taken in Syria. No person has the right to take an innocent life, let alone an entire movement. There's no reason we should let that go on. But the government needs to be prepared for the consequences that come with getting involved. There are threats from other countries. Our country could be targeted by others. There's a lot to be considered before getting involved in the Syrian conflict.
In my opinion, the United States should not get involved in the Syrian crisis. We should not get involved unless our own county's security is in danger. However by getting involved we would be doing just that, we received threats from other countries that told us not to get involved or they would attack our allies and that would look really bad on the United States part. Even though the Syrian people are not being treated right, our country has enough of our own problems and war is expensive.
This country really doesn't need anymore conflict as it is. Why are we the ones who always have to rush to aid any country with a problem when we just got out of war and we are severely in debt. If anything we are in need of help also. We need to worry about the well being of our own country before helping others when we cant help ourselves.
I think we shouldn't get involved in Syria's civil war. Syrias government has already been killing and imprisoning its own citizens yet no one has done anything, and now chemical weapons may have been used, and it may or may not have been the Syrian government (I'm still waiting to see some release of hard proof), and now all the sudden people care. Britain and France are also heading towards solving the situation, so why should we get involved when other countries are getting ready to handle it? What about all the other domestic issues we have? Why should we forego our issues for another countries sake?
Side note: I wouldn't be surprised if our government just wants to get involved to get a piece of Syria's oil.
Exactly what i thought. The only time we get involved is when something happens to us, or something becomes "morally" incorrect. This isn't the first time the govt in Syria has killed its citizens, the only reason we remotely care now is because its chemical warfare.
I agree with Nathan and David. I think we need to stay out. We just got out of a war, why get into another one? I think its unneeded. Wasn't Obama just saying how he wanted all of our troops home? But yet wants to jump into yet, ANOTHER war?? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me. I second David on the side note about the oil. But If thats what America wants to do, I think it's dumb.... A war for oil?
This article is confronting the ongoing issue of race still present in the United States. A recent Wall Street poll shows only a slight majority of people think that in America people are solely judged by their character and not their skin color. There was a decrease in this number in a similar poll shortly after the Zimmerman trial, with a huge majority disagreeing being African Americans. This illustrates how personally the issue of racial discrimination hits home for blacks in our country. Since the beginning of Martin Luther kings, Jr's desire for complete equality began this nation has taken huge strides in eliminating the issue. I think these opinions are those of most of the country and demonstrate that there is still room and a need for progress to accomplish the "Kings" dream for this nation.
My opinion on the syria thing is that the government should definitely send in troops to help out the people of Syria. It's not fair that just because they are of a different country that we do not help, after all as stated in the constitution "All men are created equal". the one thing I do see that is holding Obama back from a response is that Russia and China are both supportive of the Syrian government and what they're doing and if we get involved the chance of any potential war could pop up at anytime. I do believe we should send troops there, at least for a limited time.
I am torn between what Obama should do for Syria because I believe that the government of Syria shouldn't be using chemical warfare against its own citizens. This would want me to send troops over there to protect the lives of the innocent Syrian people. On the other hand the United States has always played "big brother" in the world and that always seems to put us in problems with other countries and the death of our soldiers that sign up to the military to protect America. Also with Syria in an alliance with Russia if we upset Russia that can pose a big world problem and the possible death of millions IF war was to break out between Russia and us.
I do believe we should get involved, but I do not think the U.S. should just hit this problem head on. If we get involved too much, then we will have Russia trying to fight us and it would be too huge of a struggle for us. I think it should be little by little because if we go in little, then there maybe will be some casualties, but there is a high chance there won't be. As we get more prepared, then the U.S. would understand more and know how to fix things.
I truly believe that we should not go. We would be sending our troops over to risk their lives. If people really wanted to do something, then we should have done something a lot sooner. I really do feel sorry for all the innocent lives being taken away over in Syria but their own government should be taking charge of all the violence and getting it to stop in some way. Like Emelia said in class today, it would be exactly like Afghanistan and Iraq. Many troops will lose their lives if we send them over.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default This is a fake news article so the Syrian president didn't really write this. I really liked what the author had to say though he made some huge facts. For example it states some good reason why we should invade Syria like the fact that our belief as a nation is to protect those in need and help democracy prevail and if we dont then everything that we have fought for has been for nothing..Then again on the other hand this will come out as a mess causing billions of dollars that the us simply doesn't have.
I dont think that we should go. America gets into to many problems where we dont belong. we should just stay out of other countries unless they effect us directly. i dont think that we should send equipment either because there are Al Quida member in Syria who may be able to get a hold of out technology and perhaps use it against us.
I honestly don't think that Obama, as of right now, should take action just yet. One major reason is because the Syrian allies already warnned Obama about getting into this because of what happened "last time". It would just start another unnecessary war that we do not need. But, I honestly think that Obama will most certainly get involved because that is just the world we live in. We get involved in things that we should actually be staying out of. Why do we get involved when we know that we are going to be present in another war?
This article makes me just sick to my stomach. This little girl was raped and is now dead, and this disgusting jerk only gets 30 days in jail?? that's horrible, what is wrong with the government? The poor mother of this girl has to know that her daughter was reaped and then killed herself and wont be coming back in 30 days like this guy.
This article is a follow up on the Syria issue. It states George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter's opinion on the tough choice Obama has to make. Bush makes remarks stating that Obama has a hard decision on his hands while Carter believes he should, "wait for ongoing investigations by United Nations inspectors to conclude." I think Bush's past decisions to send the U.S. to Afghanistan and Iraq kind of makes his opinion predictable, as in he probably thinks we should get involved.
The use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Syrian government on its own people will forever be an infamous and horrible act. The Al-Assad regime, the current regime in Syria and the regime that the chemical weapons attacks were used under, is a terrible, awful regime. Its has crushed people's hopes and dreams, and taken away their basic freedoms, liberties, and rights. In my opinion, the Al-Assad regime needs to be removed, and replaced with a different government, possibly a democratic one. Now I know what one would argue, "Well this sounds like Iraq: Part II.", and in a sense, it is, but we have to do what's right. Setting up democracy failed in Iraq, and America is not proud of that, but if done right, I believe the Syrians can have a chance at peace. Now the question remains, who do you support? The Syrian rebels that are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, but are backed by Al-Queda, the same terrorist organization that orchestrated 9/11, or the Syrian government that murdered its own people with weapons deemed unacceptable by the Geneva Convention?
Testing... testing
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/opinion/granderson-criminal-kids-responsibility/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis is a very controversial topic because parents decide how they want to raise their kids. They might not always turn out as perfect angels but what matters is how parents approach bad situations. No matter how the children behave the parents are responsible and what they say and how they react to the situation conclude what type of parent they are and how they raised their kid to act and react toward things.
I agree! I think how a child acts reflects back on the parents. I think every parent should teach their child common sense and responsibility. Even if you do grow up in a bad family, home, or neighborhood, you can still learn from those mistakes and set your personal standards for success even higher for your future. This article talks about how different factors contribute to how parents raise their children, like religion, but I think everyone knows that you don't kill someone just because you were bored. If you are bored, go read a book or update your Facebook status!
DeleteI disagree that it would be completely the parents fault as to how the child acts. The parents are not always completely in control of their children. If the kid doesn't want to follow a rule, they can and will disobey it. There are also other factors besides the parents that will influence against them, like people in the area where the child is growing up. Though, i'm sure the parents could do things to prevent things like this but that's not always the case.
DeleteI think Obama shouldn't "respond" towards Syria. If Syria continues to raise conflict then the president should take caution and be prepared to retaliate with the appropriate military action. I like how Rhode Island's Democratic Senator Jack Reed said “where this becomes a springboard for a general military option." But I believe the president should express caution, like congress, and wait for the appropriate timing.
ReplyDeleteI believe Obama should definitely have responded to Syria. The Syrian government is killing their own people. There is very little doubt that says they aren't. Our government should respond as quickly as possible to prevent this from happening again from a government that obviously doesn't care about their own people if they would use chemical weapons on them. The US and their NATO allies should invade Syria and protect the people from a government that could once again kill off their people . Although I believe the government should invade Syria, I also believe there should be a limit on how long the troops would be able to stay there. If the Syrian government does not see that we are serious about stopping them, then greater action should be taken.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is extremely controversial to me and I am uncertain of what should be done. Should we be involved in another foreign war in a region where we may not be welcome? Should we stand by and watch the country go into peril and its citizens being killed by the existing government? It's a difficult decision between what's right for our country and what's morally right. We are currently helping Syria with medical, food and supplies for refugee shelters; just not military aid at this time. I believe we are doing the right thing by at least giving some aid instead of completely turning our backs on the suffering on the Syrian people. The tough decision still is in front of us with the President's promise to use military options if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Obama should respond to Syria. Yes they are in need of help, they are in a crisis, and they innocent Syrians are in distress, but this is not the U.S’s fight. We got involved in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq and I don’t think we got anything done in any of those places. In my opinion all that was accomplished in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq was death of American soldiers. I get that innocent people might be in danger but this is not the U.S’s fight and we’d be putting innocent solider in danger if we send them to Syria. It’s their fight, let them fight.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the United States has been involved in problems around the world it is not their responsibility to come to everyones aid. Wether the United States come to syrians aid or stays out of the attack on Syria is a very contriversial subject. I don't think it is right to risk our own American soldiers, for a fight that isn't ours to fight. I dont think the United States should get involved in Syria.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not it's "our" country shouldn't matter. We are all people. Syria is killing it's own people with chemical warfare, and that's wrong on all levels. Our borders are only an agreement. I am anti-war as it gets but if the Allies' involvement can save the lives of innocent people I think we should do what we can. Humanity's responsibility to care for one another. A casual reminder of the last time the United States' isolationism got in the way of saving lives: the Holocaust.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/liberation_camps_01.shtml
DeleteI am personally torn about this issue, it is important to stay out of conflict and not hop into every issue that nations have inside themselves and with other nations. We also can't let it seem like the use of chemical weapons can be allowed in warfare. We need to express our opinions without diving head first into this conflict. Also we should pay attention to the fact that we got threats from Russia and Iran in response to us thinking about taking up arms against the Syrian government, this should be a huge deterrent to enter this conflict.
ReplyDeleteI'm torn on this issue as well. This country doesn't need to become involved in another foreign war that doesn't really have anything to do with our country. Also, the United States hasn't been invited to help intervene with the Syrians attacks. There's the other side of the issue and that's the innocent lives being taken in Syria. No person has the right to take an innocent life, let alone an entire movement. There's no reason we should let that go on. But the government needs to be prepared for the consequences that come with getting involved. There are threats from other countries. Our country could be targeted by others. There's a lot to be considered before getting involved in the Syrian conflict.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the United States should not get involved in the Syrian crisis. We should not get involved unless our own county's security is in danger. However by getting involved we would be doing just that, we received threats from other countries that told us not to get involved or they would attack our allies and that would look really bad on the United States part. Even though the Syrian people are not being treated right, our country has enough of our own problems and war is expensive.
ReplyDeleteThis country really doesn't need anymore conflict as it is. Why are we the ones who always have to rush to aid any country with a problem when we just got out of war and we are severely in debt. If anything we are in need of help also. We need to worry about the well being of our own country before helping others when we cant help ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI think we shouldn't get involved in Syria's civil war. Syrias government has already been killing and imprisoning its own citizens yet no one has done anything, and now chemical weapons may have been used, and it may or may not have been the Syrian government (I'm still waiting to see some release of hard proof), and now all the sudden people care. Britain and France are also heading towards solving the situation, so why should we get involved when other countries are getting ready to handle it? What about all the other domestic issues we have? Why should we forego our issues for another countries sake?
ReplyDeleteSide note: I wouldn't be surprised if our government just wants to get involved to get a piece of Syria's oil.
Exactly what i thought. The only time we get involved is when something happens to us, or something becomes "morally" incorrect. This isn't the first time the govt in Syria has killed its citizens, the only reason we remotely care now is because its chemical warfare.
DeleteI agree with Nathan and David. I think we need to stay out. We just got out of a war, why get into another one? I think its unneeded. Wasn't Obama just saying how he wanted all of our troops home? But yet wants to jump into yet, ANOTHER war?? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me. I second David on the side note about the oil. But If thats what America wants to do, I think it's dumb.... A war for oil?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20216365-nbcwsj-poll-many-americans-say-kings-dream-hasnt-become-a-reality-yet?lite
ReplyDeleteThis article is confronting the ongoing issue of race still present in the United States. A recent Wall Street poll shows only a slight majority of people think that in America people are solely judged by their character and not their skin color. There was a decrease in this number in a similar poll shortly after the Zimmerman trial, with a huge majority disagreeing being African Americans. This illustrates how personally the issue of racial discrimination hits home for blacks in our country. Since the beginning of Martin Luther kings, Jr's desire for complete equality began this nation has taken huge strides in eliminating the issue. I think these opinions are those of most of the country and demonstrate that there is still room and a need for progress to accomplish the "Kings" dream for this nation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion on the syria thing is that the government should definitely send in troops to help out the people of Syria. It's not fair that just because they are of a different country that we do not help, after all as stated in the constitution "All men are created equal". the one thing I do see that is holding Obama back from a response is that Russia and China are both supportive of the Syrian government and what they're doing and if we get involved the chance of any potential war could pop up at anytime. I do believe we should send troops there, at least for a limited time.
ReplyDeleteI am torn between what Obama should do for Syria because I believe that the government of Syria shouldn't be using chemical warfare against its own citizens. This would want me to send troops over there to protect the lives of the innocent Syrian people. On the other hand the United States has always played "big brother" in the world and that always seems to put us in problems with other countries and the death of our soldiers that sign up to the military to protect America. Also with Syria in an alliance with Russia if we upset Russia that can pose a big world problem and the possible death of millions IF war was to break out between Russia and us.
ReplyDeleteI do believe we should get involved, but I do not think the U.S. should just hit this problem head on. If we get involved too much, then we will have Russia trying to fight us and it would be too huge of a struggle for us. I think it should be little by little because if we go in little, then there maybe will be some casualties, but there is a high chance there won't be. As we get more prepared, then the U.S. would understand more and know how to fix things.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that we should not go. We would be sending our troops over to risk their lives. If people really wanted to do something, then we should have done something a lot sooner. I really do feel sorry for all the innocent lives being taken away over in Syria but their own government should be taking charge of all the violence and getting it to stop in some way. Like Emelia said in class today, it would be exactly like Afghanistan and Iraq. Many troops will lose their lives if we send them over.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default
ReplyDeleteThis is a fake news article so the Syrian president didn't really write this. I really liked what the author had to say though he made some huge facts. For example it states some good reason why we should invade Syria like the fact that our belief as a nation is to protect those in need and help democracy prevail and if we dont then everything that we have fought for has been for nothing..Then again on the other hand this will come out as a mess causing billions of dollars that the us simply doesn't have.
I dont think that we should go. America gets into to many problems where we dont belong. we should just stay out of other countries unless they effect us directly. i dont think that we should send equipment either because there are Al Quida member in Syria who may be able to get a hold of out technology and perhaps use it against us.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't think that Obama, as of right now, should take action just yet. One major reason is because the Syrian allies already warnned Obama about getting into this because of what happened "last time". It would just start another unnecessary war that we do not need. But, I honestly think that Obama will most certainly get involved because that is just the world we live in. We get involved in things that we should actually be staying out of. Why do we get involved when we know that we are going to be present in another war?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/justice/montana-teacher-rape-sentence/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
ReplyDeleteThis article makes me just sick to my stomach. This little girl was raped and is now dead, and this disgusting jerk only gets 30 days in jail?? that's horrible, what is wrong with the government? The poor mother of this girl has to know that her daughter was reaped and then killed herself and wont be coming back in 30 days like this guy.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/30/as-obama-weighs-syria-strikes-predecessors-weigh-in/?iref=obnetwork
ReplyDeleteThis article is a follow up on the Syria issue. It states George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter's opinion on the tough choice Obama has to make. Bush makes remarks stating that Obama has a hard decision on his hands while Carter believes he should, "wait for ongoing investigations by United Nations inspectors to conclude." I think Bush's past decisions to send the U.S. to Afghanistan and Iraq kind of makes his opinion predictable, as in he probably thinks we should get involved.
The use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Syrian government on its own people will forever be an infamous and horrible act. The Al-Assad regime, the current regime in Syria and the regime that the chemical weapons attacks were used under, is a terrible, awful regime. Its has crushed people's hopes and dreams, and taken away their basic freedoms, liberties, and rights. In my opinion, the Al-Assad regime needs to be removed, and replaced with a different government, possibly a democratic one. Now I know what one would argue, "Well this sounds like Iraq: Part II.", and in a sense, it is, but we have to do what's right. Setting up democracy failed in Iraq, and America is not proud of that, but if done right, I believe the Syrians can have a chance at peace. Now the question remains, who do you support? The Syrian rebels that are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, but are backed by Al-Queda, the same terrorist organization that orchestrated 9/11, or the Syrian government that murdered its own people with weapons deemed unacceptable by the Geneva Convention?
ReplyDelete