The Pros And Cons Of The Syrian Civil War

Syria and Lebanon are two dramatically different states with a deeply intertwined history. They were both born out of French interventionism following World War 1, and have experienced complex and strained relations ever since. The two nations have both experienced prodigious political turmoil since gaining their independence, with both suffering from civil wars and conflict with their mutual neighbor, Israel. The war and turmoil that has plagued these two countries can be traced back to various competing national interests, as well as a struggle for regional power. The various religious groups in the area have historically formed transnational advocacy networks with the intent of influencing regional politics. These groups have proved to of been a major factor in the history of both nations.

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

With a death toll in the hundred of thousands, and millions displaced, the Syrian civil war has become a violent mark on the world’s history. What started as a peaceful protest has spread over five years, has evolved into a war with a tyrannical government, a clashing rebellion, and terrorism fighting either side. But what is it that really fuels the immense amount of violence? It can be narrowed down to four groups that are obvious. The government and the rebels are the forerunners in violence in the war, sure, but they aren’t the only ones. There are the terrorist groups, with skewed views to support the destruction of people and things around them, and in itself the stark difference of the religions and ethnicities of Syria. Who causes

Destruction, violence, and chaos engulfs the lives of those in the Middle East, specifically in Syria. Since 2011 the country has been in disarray and consumed in a vicious civil war displacing millions of inhabitants of the region. Several countries have offered aid and asylum to these refugees, which raises the question: Should the United States (U.S.), a prominent world leader, allow Syrian refugees to seek asylum in their country? Several articles explore this question, including “Are Syrian Refugees Really a Security Risk? - Harvard Political Review”, “To Defeat ISIS, Know Thy Terrorist; Scorning Syrian refugees is doing ISIS a huge favor”, and “No vetting of Syrian "refugees" in Obama's "resettlement" invasion: the FBI says there is no way to vet incoming refugees and Senate and House chairmen blasted Obama for serious national security risks and economic costs of refugee policy”. The authors of the first and second article, Evan Bonsall and Kurt Eichenwald, argue that the refugees should be allowed asylum, while the author of the third article, William F. Jasper, argues against granting asylum. All of the authors employ complex rhetorical strategies including ethos, pathos, logos and other systems to explain their opinion and target their desired audiences.

The Iraq War was one of the most controversial and expensive wars in the history of the United States, so expensive infact,that before the war, Iraq owed the United States four billion dollars, and after the war, the US owed Iraq over seven billion. The decision to go to war with Iraq was based off of the false intelligence that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the United States entered Iraq to destroy these weapons, and remove Saddam Hussein from power. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found, therefore the US should have never declared war. Although the Iraq War eliminated the dictator Saddam Hussein from power, it cost the US exceedingly, in the well-being of the soldiers, in economics, and in foreign affairs.

The fourth mission was to collect more information on Iraqis weapons of mass destruction activity, as with the objective of collecting information on other terrorist groups. The U.S military recovered documents on its illegal weapon programs. The fifth objective was too lock Iraq’s oil production and fields. Many people thought was the first objective because U.S military forces secured the filed within early hours of the war. The U.S had made announcement on April 14th, that all of Iraqis major oil sources were under control. There was very little damage on the resources. One of the last goals that were important to the United States was too give Iraq humanitarian relief and end sanctions. Even while the war was still in the process the U.S forces started to help the

Operation Iraqi Freedom saw a new rise in media censorship for embedded journalists, before departing their country of origin and being embedded with a military unit journalists were required to undergo joint training and sign contracts vowing not to report information that could compromise unit position, future missions, classified weapons, and information they might find during their time in the field. When asked about the purpose of the embedded journalists and these new restrictions Lt. Col. Rick Long of the U.S. Marine Corps replied "Our job is to win the war. Part of that is information warfare. So we are going to attempt to dominate the information environment.” Journalism from the front was no longer being used as a method of information broadcasting for concerned families and civilians at home, but to ensure proper reception of the war and shape public opinion not only in the United States, but the world as a whole.

I enjoyed reading your post this week, too. I agree with you with “the group (al Qaeda) has lost their ability to sway the minds of the Arab youth for recruitment purposes.” That is very true that other Islamist terrorist lost their influenza on the region, too. This shows that people showed their willingness and men of goodwill for a more democratic regime. Didn’t they?

I'm sick of Racial profiling in this country, America and many other countries. How can the government talk about bombing Syria when it is not the country that has done wrong it is the minority that have chosen to operate from said country. Another thing is how people see Muslims as the people in the wrong just because Muslim extremists are the ones causing problems in the world right now. One of my closest family friends is a Muslim and in now way because of him being one means that he wants to murder and kill anyone that doesn't believe in the same things as him. There are Muslim doctors saving lives, taxi drivers, public servants I could go on. My point is stop profiling people on their religion when in truth they have not done anything

My thoughts on Aleppo consists of how tremendously broken down Syria has become. Syria was a populous country, meaning that it was viewed highly upon. The forces of the Syrian President, Bashar Assad, and the rebels destroyed the country that was once beautiful. I personally think that the U.S. should intervene, but until we are the last option. The United States needs to deal with the conflict happening inside of the country before we help anyone outside. The U.S. should help defend Syria, but at the right time.

Attacks are aimed at ordinary people rather than at military targets or political leader. Two logical problems with this video. The first is that this video shows how IS-IS invaded Syria and in the next breath says the President of Syria started a civil war. It makes no sense. This video says and shows Syria being invaded then calls the resulting conflict a civil war started by the Syrian president. This is obviously due to ideological propaganda.

In Syria, the relatively conservative, patriarchal and politically repressive pre-war society posed limitations on women’s rights movements and for advocacy of greater political freedoms, social justice, non-discrimination and gender equality. Although, Syria arguably grants greater rights to women than most other countries in the middle east, discrimination against women is clearly found in its laws relating to women’s personal status and role in the family, including issues related to marriage, inheritance, custody, divorce, and gender-based violence. Conservative interpretations of Sharia law largely influence these laws and has entrenched cultural and religious norms with regards to female behavior and the concept of ‘family honor.’

Syrian civil war started in 2011 was the outcome of the opposition against the President Bashar al-Assad regime. The uprising emerged as a response to the Arab spring movement that lead to regime change in Tunisia and subsequently turned into mass unrest rooted into the discontent with long-term dictatorship and poor economic situation in the country (Manfreda, n.d.). The number of Syrian citizens killed in the civil war reached 140000 since March 2011 (SBS 2014). The European Commission (2014, 2) reports approximately 9.3 million civilians “in need for humanitarian assistance”. The scale of armed rebellion between government and opposition that lead to an increasing number of casualties among civilians did not remain unnoticed by the

I understand why after hearing such things you can believe Syrians aren't good people. However, I don't think it's right to believe most Syrians are bad, because of what other Muslims or Syrians have done. Those two attacks were somehow linked to ISIS, and ISIS does no represent every single middle eastern person. We both have a different opinion on this though, but thanks for your