Syria Conflict

Although in my previous blog I did address U.S. intervention, this time I'm addressing it in Syria because I feel that each country has its own story and therefore needs its own justification and backing.

The question brought to America again is if we should get involved. In the conflict between the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the current government, 70,000 people have died. The government is threatening the use of chemical weapons on their own people (much more painful and destructive than atomic weapons) and the conflict is well drawn-out, causing lots of death over long periods of time.

The American people are pointing to not getting involved, with 76% surveyed saying that intervention is a bad idea. In my previous post about Mali, this is indeed the case; but the conflict is much more severe and the consequences can be much more drastic if the situation is not resolved. As of right now, futile attempts at ceasefire have done nothing on either side, the rebels and the government have ignored it. The UN is simply powerless at the moment because Russia and China are not responding to it and Russia is aiding the government at the moment, putting the rebels at a serious disadvantage. The rebels are outgunned in every aspect, including air force, supplies, and infantry. Their only hope is intervention, and their cause does reflect America's interests.

However, I believe that in this case, intervention is necessary. Although we are in trouble ourselves, intervention is in our best interest in the long run. If Syria was to continue on its current path, then the middle east would simply continue in turmoil and become more and more anti-Western, as it is becoming now. If this continues to happen, then America's economy may be in more trouble than it is now due to our dependence on oil.

The regret of our fallen soldiers from the war on terrorism still hangs in all of our hearts, and so therefore I believe that our intervention cannot be of soldiers or any american citizens, but rather or supplies and newly developing drone technology. With these, we can help the rebels out-supply the government which can really help them win the long war. Many innocent people are dying in Syria, and if the fighting does not end in the rebel victory, more can die in America and allied nations within the next decade or so.

Works Cited

Brooks, Mo. "U.S. Cannot Afford to Intervene in Syria's Civil War." Congress Blog. The Hill, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/239971-us-cannot-afford-to-ntervene-in-syrias-civil-war>.

"Council on Foreign Relations." Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.cfr.org/syria/american-options-syria/p26226>.

"Few Back U.S. Military Role in Syria – But Support Jumps in Specific Cases." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/few-back-u-s-military-role-in-syria-but-support-jumps-in-specific-cases/>. 

Mali: The next Afghanistan?

Time and time again, the world finds itself in chaos and America intervened to save democracy and protect its self-interests. However, after the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, many Americans are thinking twice about  getting involved in wars. But after all the roles that America has played in the world, do we have a choice anymore? The question many Americans are asking today is, "Will America get involved?"

Currently, America is not directly involved with troops. France has taken the reigns and is sending troops to fight over Mali and reclaim the recently overthrown democratic government. French troops are being supplied by American industries, and America is leading fuel and airstrike missions in Mali. America has yet to send any troops over there, and I believe that this choice is the right thing to do.

Mali is a landlocked country and surrounded by seven fragile countries. If it is to fall, it could pose serious threats and force all of Africa into control by the Islamic militants. This could threaten the American views of democracy and seriously increase the chances of a future 9/11 attack. In this case, however, France is in control of the defense; and if America were to supply them with whatever is needed, the need for troops will not be required. Americans have become weary of war and fear the consequences of a future war. Nobody wants send our soldiers over there and threaten their lives. Our technology today enables us to send drones to Mali that could help the French. The need to send troops is nonexistant, the only plausible support to send troops is to support the French.

As stated by a U.S. official, intervention in Mali could take years to complete. Many are saying that it is the War in Afghanistan all over again, and that only complete U.S. intervention could solve the turmoil. However, this is not the case. America is a world power, but so is France. As our ethnocentric views have labeled most European countries as militarily inferior, in reality this is far from the case. In fact, right now the tides have turned in France's favor almost as soon as France landed in Mali. The insurgents are hiding in mountains and rapidly losing ground. It seems as if France has learned from the mistakes of America in Afghanistan and tried better techniques on the war against terror.

So Americans today may continue asking if we are going to get involved, but in reality it is not necessary and in fact could end up being a burden to our economy once again. By simply supplying the French military, our goal of keeping terrorism on the low is accomplished and many American lives are saved.




Citations

Formanek, Ingrid, Pierre Meilhan, and Barbara Starr. "U.S. Steps up Involvement in Mali." CNN. Cable News Network, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.


Press, Associated. "US Official: Mali Intervention ‘could Take Years’; Militants Were Trained by Gadhafi’s Libya." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.


"Wickham: U.S. Military Role in Mali Not Far off." USA Today. Gannett, n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.

Gun Violence

In wake of the December 13th tragedy at Sandy Hook High School, the issues of mental health and gun violence are being brought into question. Many are asking, "Is the country responsible for the mentally ill?" However, the real issue is within the accessibility and unnecessary gun access that every citizen has. To take a "what if" scenario, if Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook, did not have access to guns, he would not be able to attempt such a tragic shooting.

Some people are pinning the blame on the violence in video games. However, it is a simulation, and although it does seem to have a violent impact upon the children, it is not the biggest factor contributing to the death of many elementary school kids. Video games can be harmful in mental health but is only able to be a killing factor when combined with the real life materials. Gun rights advocates seem to be bringing up the 2nd amendment in every scenario possible to limit gun rights, but they fail to see that the situation has changed. When the second amendment was written by our forefathers, they did not anticipate that they could walk into a store and pick up a piece of metal that can kill hundreds of people in seconds to be part of the future. As the times have changed, so to must our laws. Guns should not be available to the public, because they simply are not necessary for anything. If you wanted a gun in 2012, what would you want it for? The police and army are protecting you both locally and globally, and the chances of a zombie apocalypse are close to 0%, we simply don't have the technology to reanimate dead tissue. Our chances of dying from a vending machine is higher than that.

The only reason that people want a gun in the 21st century is because they have the intention to kill. Even hunters don't use fully automatic guns as they are unwieldy and uncontrollable. The weapons used in Sandy Hook were designed for killing humans. Is that fully necessary to be releasing to the public? In fact, it is easier to obtain a gun license and buy those guns for yourself than to get a drivers license. The background checks and safety checks for buying a gun are very limited and not very effective, as proven multiple times. We are in an epidemic of shooting, with Sandy Hook and the theater in Colorado happening within a very short time span. These once-in-a-lifetime tragedies are happening every day.

Works Cited

Boehlert, Eric. "Why Won't Press Put U.S. Gun Violence In Context?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Dec. 2012. Web. 21 Dec. 2012.

"Preventing the next Adam Lanza Requires Action Today." Fox News. FOX News Network, 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 21 Dec. 2012.

"TRENDING: Obama Responds to Petitions against Gun Violence." CNN Political Ticker RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2012.

Zakaria, Fareed. "The Solution to Gun Violence Is Clear." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 20 Dec. 2012. Web. 21 Dec. 2012. 

The Economy

In an effort to avoid the fiscal cliff, Republicans introduced their budget plan in order to save the economy. However, democrats quickly rebuffed it saying that it does not "meet the test of balance". The balance trying to be achieved is finding the right amount of cuts and tax increases and still getting the maximum amount of savings possible. Although the Republicans have a plan that slightly increases savings, it is not entirely realistic because it dampers the middle class even more than it is now and in some scenarios help the wealthy top percentage, our biggest taxpayers.

I believe that the Republican plan to avoid the fiscal cliff is not entirely appropriate at this situation. The wealthiest in our nation have indeed sometimes earned their way to the top, but once you get there, you sometimes forget your humble roots. They should be giving the most simply because they have the most, which is accountable for much more than the middle class. The republicans did give a proposal that would create an outrage from the public. One of their saving ideas includes $200 billion over 10 years by changing the way the government calculates inflation, which would negatively impact benefit increases in government programs such as Medicare or Social Security. It would also raise taxes by slowing the yearly rise in tax brackets. Republicans realized that this approach could be unpopular, but it was the "right response" to the deficits over $1 trillion.

The plan in theory does seem to aid the economy, but in reality it would create an outrage and the wealthiest in our nation would be getting away with minimal to no change in their tax programs. The people in the middle class should constitute to a large sum of the money being paid in taxes, but the upper class should be somewhere close, because although they lack numbers they have the money to fill the gap. The Republican plan also may increase taxes in some situations for the middle class and hurt programs that the middle class needs to live on, like Medicare. If this plan was to be enacted into play, we would see a huge amount of middle class Americans suffering while the upper class (top 2%) get away without much of an impact.





Works Cited

Killough, Ashley, Adam Levy, Deirdre Walsh, and Greg Botelho. "House GOP Offers Plan to Avoid Fiscal Cliff, but White House Says No." CNN. Cable News Network, 04 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html>.

Parkinson, John. "Boehner Counters Obama Deficit-Cutting Deal With ‘Credible Plan’." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/boehner-counters-obama-deficit-cutting-deal-with-credible-plan/>.

Weisman, Johnathan. "Republicans Make Counteroffer in Fiscal Talks." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 3 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us/politics/boehner-counters-obamas-proposal-on-deficit-cuts.html?_r=0>.