https://padlet.com/cheg3408/6666z0c30usb English III Final en-us 2017-05-03 20:32:09 UTC 2025-10-02 13:06:26 UTC hello@padlet.com kalr3033 https://padlet.com/cheg3408/6666z0c30usb/wish/169797823 By: Kaley Rodriguez. 
One of many ideas the United States seems to be considering is how acts of war should be approached, especially towards intriguing axis powers. The following illustration argues the idea that the only way to decrease acts of wars is by allowing the U.S to start intervening against on powers  that could furthermore potentially harm the United States wellbeing. (O)

(O) The image depicts a pro opposition through the illustration of two hands, one being an American hand while the other being a Syrian hand. The two hands carry on a game of chess on a board that outlines Russia. (O)

(P) As both hands secrete from both left and right hand corners of the canvas. One hand clothed the American Flag while the other clothed by the Syrian flag, yet they remain to  progress a game of chess over a region such as Russia. The outline of Russia taking up most of the vertical regions of the canvas. As the Syrian hand raises it seems indecisive on a move, this implicating Syria has no guidance for a next move when involving war acts. The placement of each object creates the assumption that the U.S  has a  higher advantage at superiority and defeat able factor over Russia, a axis power that has caused both the Syria and the U.S much distress and agony.(P)

(T) Although there seems to be no title within the following illustration, if the piece was given a title it would be " land of chess" because the image depicts that not only one power, but with an intervention, a defeat is to be succeeded, just as a game of chess would be beaten if one mind were settled when knowing how to deal with tactics. In this case the U.S. (T)

(I) The following idea is gained through the usage of IMAGERY and Symbol , since the objects visualizations depict each power whether it be American, Syrian, and Russian that will be impacted by such an intervene. Furthermore, the following factors lead the cartoon to gain the perception that the U.S must form alliances with Axis powers such as Syria in order to  defeat other axis powers that have the capability to overthrow governmental stands. (I)

(C) Therefore, leading to the conclusion that an act such as an intervene with Syria should not be disregarded but, rather diminished since it's easily probable solutions towards a anti-war movement.  An intervene allows the U.S to protect and prevent further transpirations of war for the sake of both Syrian and American society. (C)]]> 2017-05-03 20:54:03 UTC https://padlet.com/cheg3408/6666z0c30usb/wish/169797823 cheg3408 https://padlet.com/cheg3408/6666z0c30usb/wish/169797904 By: Chelsea Guevara Flamenco
A troubling situation that we could face is the U.S. involvement in a potential World War 3. This trouble began when an unruly American airstrike killed about 60 Syrian government soldiers. In response to that the Syrian government, with the aid of Russia, decided to bomb rebel-held areas of Aleppo. After this bombing, which nearly killed 64 people, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States will no longer have communication with Russia and cut off all efforts of doing so. It is time to end all connections regarding Syria's civil war, stop intervening, and let Syria fight their own battle. 

Further involvement in this war could start a potential world war 3, sending several of our troops to a fatal war for most of them. Our cities will be bombed, causing constant fear and distress of whether a bomb will hit your house, killing and injuring loved ones. The decision of our United States government and president will drastically change history, and determine the lives of many. 

The country of Syria has been destroyed and dismantled by this civil war. Its people have been ravaged and economically destroyed. According to Steven Heydemann in his article "Why the United States hasn't intervened in Syria" posted on The Washington Post on March 14 ,2016 , he argues that U.S. intervention in Syria will only make matters worse. He shows this when he states " What has been most evident in the administration's approach to Syria is a deep cognitive bias against risk. For the president and his advisors, the possibility that U.S. actions might have negative consequences has consistently loomed larger than the actual and visibly negative effects on inaction. Even as Syria's conflict escalated and the costs of inaction have mounted, the administration's risk calculus has remained static." He shows what is occurring inside The White House regarding the role of administration. He shows their concern and what our involvement is leading up to. 

With violence and terror in Syria, many have lost loved ones, have had their homes destroyed, and have had to flee for safety and shelter. Regarding this he further claims "The conflict, however, has not cooperated. Violence has metastasized, spilling millions of desperate refugees outward. Regional actors and radicalized fighters have flowed inward, transforming a local insurgency into a "mini world war." " Heydemann shows the effects of our actions. He intends to open the minds of people and try to get them to see the reality of our involvement. 

Due to our involvement in Syria, according to a 2016 article posted on The New York Times by Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson entitled " Don't intervene in Syria", "The cease-fire in Syria that the United States and Russia tortuously negotiated has, like the ones before it, fallen apart." The United States, even with aiding them in WW2, has never had a good and strong relationship with Russia. Even with efforts to keep the peace between the two countries, we still cannot remain on good terms with them and it is getting violent after many years. If we make more efforts and get involved, it could ignite the situation and make things worse. Instead, we should be looking for solutions of how to reduce all of this. As claimed by the authors of this article " But the truth is that it is too late for the United States to wade deeper into the Syrian conflict without risking a major war, or, at best, looking feckless by failing to fully commit to confronting Russia and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and then backing down. The goal now should be reducing harm, saving lives and keeping prospects for a political deal alive. Cease-fire talks between the Untied States and Russia, tormented though they may be, remain the best way to achieve this."  These two authors clearly give an insight of future consequences and provide a potential solution for this potential world war. 

A solution has been proposed by the Obama administration stated by Heydemann that "seeking to empower local moderates, shift military balance of power on the ground and facilitate a negotiated political transition that would preserve state institutions, leave in place elements of the Assad Regime that did not have blood on their hands, and guarantee the security of minorities, including the Alawi community" is the most logical and wisest solution to this situation. To prevent further involvement we also need to build our military power and protect our citizens and refugees coming in from Syria. 

Another proposition for a solution, stated by Simon and Stevenson, is that " The United States should create a no-fly zone in Syria to protect civilians  from Mr. Assad and Russia's bombs." This way it could create a safer environment and try to help the refugees caught in the middle of this civil war. Further involvement could only escalate the problem as argued " There are probably limits to Moscow's defense to Mr. Assad's blood lust, but it is unclear what they are. This is what makes an American escalation in Syria so dangerous." The best solution is to take a non-violent approach, and try to avoid violence and direct contact as much as possible. While doing this, the tension between the two countries could deescalate with time. 

In an urge to intervene with the civil war in Syria, the United States should aid Syria and help save innocent civilian lives. In agreement with Helen Ouyang with her article entitled " Why the US Should Intervene in Syria" posted on the Huffington Post she argues " We must remember that military intervention is not a solution-  it is one action to stop crimes against humanity. It does not replace other forms of conflict resolution or peace-building strategies. I do not know what exactly that intervention would look like, but given what I've seen and heard amongst the Syrian refugees in just Lebanon alone, I do not know what a non- intervention would look like." She proves a point that there is just as much harm, if not more, by not intervening and helping Syria. 

The more we discuss the topic, with each passing minute, there is another bomb dropped and another life lost. As reported by Frida Ghitis in her article " 5 reasons the U.S. must intervene in Syria" posted on CNN News on August 28, 2013 " More than 100,000 have been killed in Syria. That alone should stir the conscience of humanity. But there is something uniquely dangerous about  the introduction of chemical weapons. Horrified by the effects of chemical weapons on the battlefield, nations have come together over the years to develop international bans on nerve gases, blister agents, blood agents, and choking agents." Since the United States is not helping and not getting involved, more innocent lives are being taken by the minute. Now that chemical weapons are being used, the fatality rate has risen dramatically. Syria is not capable of fighting this war alone and need the help from the U.S. to save their country. 

Regardless of this horrific occurrence, the United States should not intervene in the civil war going on in Syria. A potential solution to this catastrophe is to shift military balance of power on the ground, facilitate a negotiated political transition that would preserve state institutes, and create a no-fly zone to protect civilians. We should take a non- violent approach and avoid confrontation to prevent the situation from escalating. Lastly, for the sake and safety of our own country the United States must end all connections and efforts regarding Syria's civil war, stop intervening, and let Syria fight their own battle.






]]> 2017-05-03 20:54:46 UTC https://padlet.com/cheg3408/6666z0c30usb/wish/169797904 kalr3033 https://padlet.com/cheg3408/6666z0c30usb/wish/170271961 By: Kaley Rodriguez 
 The idea of allowing the U.S to intervene in Syria may sound like a moralistic solution on the behalf of Syrian powers. However, The following illustration argues that an intervene in Syria truly has NO benefits in favor of the United States.

(O) The opposing idea is formed when the image depicts a split between former American president Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The additional figures being separate Syrian powers, one being the FSA, the other being  regular Syrian soldier. The two political powers seemed to raged against one another.

(P) As the left side of the canvas  protrudes a sense of Americanization, due to the American hand reaching down among Obamas background this shows America power is to be presented.  However, before crossing a splitting section that seems to be the Syrian flag, skulls expand. The Skulls implicating one of many deaths War acts such as an intervene can introduce. Once the Right side is reached a sense of Russian (axis powers) to be  depicted, due to the Russia's hand reaches down behind the Russian figure Vladimir Putin. The two powers both possessing there own opposing Syrian parties. In addition, vast amount and high voltage of fire which expands within the horizontal piece of the canvas. (P) 

(T) The following illustration has NO title. however, if the piece did it would be referred to as " The fired conflict", for the image depicts a sense of arousement between the political groups appointed. (T)

(I) The idea of conflict spreading and abruption between U.S and other axis powers once a intervene is initiated is characterized through the usage of Imagery and Situational Irony. Imagery and Situational irony depicting the idea that conflict will form when axis powers feel threatened by U.S powers that participate with the idea of a civil war.

(C) The illustration leading to the conclusion that if the United states were to intervene between Syria and other axis powers, this would result in a bigger war. A bigger war that decreases the safety of civilians and for future American society, for the world will become consumed by the brutality that axis powers will aim towards the U.S (c)]]> 2017-05-05 20:49:43 UTC https://padlet.com/cheg3408/6666z0c30usb/wish/170271961 lync7948 https://padlet.com/cheg3408/6666z0c30usb/wish/170624492 By: Lynn Cabelino
       With the civil war going on in Syria, they are in desperate need of aid to stop the war and the killings of innocent civilians. It is estimated that over 400,00 people have died since the civil war started back in 2011. Syria's government under Bashar Al-Assad Regime has killed 94% of the total number of people killed. What better country than the United States to intervene in the war and overthrow the Assad regime.  

Stopping the war will save thousands of lives and prevent any more from being lost. It can also show other countries, say North Korea, the consequences of using weapons of mass destruction on civilians. Furthermore, overthrowing the government of the Assad regime most likely means that Syria will be in better hands than before.

In an article by CNN titled "5 reasons the U.S. must intervene in Syria", it states that "When the president of the United States says that use of chemical weapons is a 'red line', other dangerous regimes pay close attention to see what he means." If Syria starts using more chemical weapons and the U.S. does not do anything, then other countries will start using them as well because they think there will be no consequences for doing so. This could further escalate to using nuclear weapons, which would be catastrophic. 

The CNN article also states that no intervention by the U.S.will give the Al-Assad regime victory in the civil war. Considering that their corrupt government has killed the most amount of people, handing them the victory would not be in Syria's best interest considering that their government has killed the most amount of civilians.

Intervention in Syria would not only help their corrupt government, but save thousands of people's lives. In an article by the Huffington Post titled "Why the US Should Intervene in Syria", it states that "I still can’t turn my back on the 110,000 who have died and the six million more who have fled their homes." If one disagrees on intervention in Syria because it could be dangerous for troops, could start more conflict, etc., then they should think about who the war is actually affecting. It is easy to see other people in different countries suffering and say that is not my problem, but when it affects us we want everyone to help. The U.S. helping Syria would be the humane thing to do in order to help the thousands of civilians that are being affected the most by this war.  

Furthermore, the civil war has been spreading out past Syria's border. The CNN article states that, "Millions of Syrians have fled their homes, straining resources and occasionally raining fire into Jordan , Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and even Israel." The civil war could very well spread to different parts of the middle east, which would cause a lot of conflict because it has the biggest oil reserves in the world. Intervention by the U.S. has a great potential to stop this conflict and prevent anymore from rising which could have a global impact due to how important the middle east is in business.

To stop the civil war, the U.S. would most likely have to send troops in to stop the acts of terrorism on civilians. The government already spends billions of dollars on the military so sending troops there should not be an issue, and not to mention the United States has the best military in the world. The U.S. should easily be able to stop the civil war going on with little worry of weapons of mass destruction being used. 

Although the U.S. should intervene in Syria, that does not mean we should be putting our troops' lives at risk. The military should help to a certain extent, not fight the battle for them. They should simply provide aid to the rebels to help fight back the government and overthrow it. This could mean that the U.S. does not have to send troops to Syria at all, it could just mean that they send over the weapons or money that the rebels need to fight the government. In that case, the U.S. would not need to physically involve themselves in Syria.

Even though it would be a risk, the United States should intervene in Syria because it can save thousands of innocent civilians, it can show other world powers that the United States has the power to stop the civil war, and it will most likely put Syria in better hands if the Al-Assad regime is overthrown. Though most would argue that the United States should take a non-violent approach when handing this situation, it is apparent that a non-violent approach alone will not stop the civil war. It is also clear in American history that some of the greatest battles won were wars that a lot of people had to sacrifice to win. Sometimes to stop violence, violence must also be used against it, and it is clear now that that is what the United States should do to stop the civil war in Syria.



]]> 2017-05-08 20:51:48 UTC https://padlet.com/cheg3408/6666z0c30usb/wish/170624492