Summary: Senator John McCain, a not-so-big fan of our dear Barack Obama, decides to back up the President on the attack on Syria, so long as Barack helps the rebels with their weaponry against the Syrian government/military. Senator's Graham (of North Carolina) and Senator McCain agreed that they would meet with Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser to discuss the matter further. McCain confessed later that he didn't as secure about what weapons would be used in the strike against the Middle Eastern country and also said that for Congress not to agree and back Obama's motion to strike on Syria would be “catastrophic" and would ruin the United States legitimacy. The ultimate say I the matter, the ultimate 'yes' however comes from Congress and the lawyers that are mostly oppose to attacking Syria and wish for a more peaceful transaction.The other nations that have backed Obama's wish to attack Syria are France and Israel, whose president has said that he is confident that the U.S. will make the right decision.
Link : http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
Author: The authors are Jackie Calmes, Micheal R. Gordon, and Eric Schmitt. I know no general or previous information on these authors.
Place and Time: This article was produce in New York, New York, and was published on the second of September. This exact timing of the publishing of this article could affect its legitimacy. FOR EXAMPLE, if this article was posted two months ago instead of almost two days ago, it would not have been as effective because the topics discussed in this article's could possibly already solved and therefore the information in this article would no longer be needed.
Prior Knowledge: I had previously heard that the U.S. was having personal problems with Syria but never really knew what those issues were, until I had to write this current event. Since I have no prior knowledge, my lack of knowledge down at really affect me.
Audience: The audience for this article is a mature, older one that is more than likely engrossed in the United States international.affairs one way or another.The audience has also probably been following this story to the tee, eager for updates on what it currently happening with Obama and Congress . I don't really see this article as being negative, since McCain, who obviously doesn't normally concur with our president has finally stepped up to the plate and supported the president in a time where McCain's opinion is valued and appreciated. Therefore, I would like to think this is a positive influence on the readers.
Reason For Article: the reason this article was written was to persuade the readers the readers to get on Obama's wagon for attacking Syria because one of Obama's not-so-supportive senators agreed with him, which should hold some sort of value in the reader's eyes.
Conveyed Main Idea: The Article's main idea is that Obama must have a point on attacking Syria because even his senator McCain has backed him up on this, so Congress should think long and hard on whether they truly want a peaceful diplomacy or not.
Personally, I would like to hear the President's reasoning behind his decision to attack Syria. I understand the need to protect the Syrian people, and I do agree that because we are a world superpower, we have a certain responsibility to ensure that the ARE protected. What I don't agree with is making a military decision for that reason alone. We need to make sure this is the best option from all veiwpoints before we make a rash decision.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with you... Obama didn't mention his stance in my article really, other than the fact that he did want to make some sort of a strike... however, striking means guns and weaponry that WILL kill innocent civilians and then the U.S. will look horrible and have extremely innocent blood on our hands..
DeleteI think that we all can agree what happened to the Syrian people was wrong, the only thing that we are failing to do is figure out the best way to respond to the situation. I don't necessarily think U.S. involvement is wrong, I think a military move may be the correct option. But this would only be if the strike was handled in a particular way. We can't be a country that is so ready to resort to violent tactics. We should at least try nonviolent protests first...
ReplyDeleteI am not as opposed to the Syrian attack as I usually would be because we will not be deploying US soldiers onto the battlefield. Instead the idea is to make Assad acknowledge that using chemical weapons against people is punishable, by assisting the rebels. By no means is violence the right first-choice, but at times it is necessary. Too many innocent lives have been taken already. It's also interesting that other countries seem to be backing Obama's proposition (unlike the attack on Iraq in 2003). - Nana Johnson 2nd Period
ReplyDelete