Government; Order vs. Restriction
Kailah Clarke

In Government
Craig Richardson
70A

Kailah Clarke
Participation In Government
1/23/14
Government; Order vs. Restriction Government is the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states. Like many of authority, Government has its "Pros" and cons. There are many types of Governments such as Oligarchy, Monarchy, and anarchy. The main call for Government when it was first established was to have order and stability in society. However, many would argue that Government serves as more of a restriction for some rather than its original purpose to protect the people. Furthermore it is imperative for government to be strict because without restriction order would not exist, but in some cases the government does not always make the right decisions and many evidence of this is found in the current day.
As the world had witnessed atrocities in Syria, the use of (weapons of mass destruction) the world had struggled to find out a solution to Syria’s political problems. This is after the Syrian army supporting the presidents use of poisonous gas that killed 1,400 innocent civilians. The beginning of the conflict in Syria two years ago was the people’s struggle to oust the president Bashar Assad from power who has been ruling the country as a dictator for the past twenty years. There are so many groups In Syria interested in ousting the president, as well as other groups that are supporting the president. These groups are; Hizbullah,Jihadist,Shiite,Sunnis,Christians, and Al Qaeda. These various groups have made political solutions in this conflict nearly impossible because their leaders and objectives are unknown. This makes it difficult for the United States to determine what group to support since some of them have ties to Al Qaeda. As the war progressed in Syria things really began to get worse, which led to other problems in the Syrian community. The killing in Syria started with a peaceful protest in April 2011 due to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Activists were then being tortured, killed, and rapped, which caused an inevitable response by civilians. This caused a Civil war which resulted in civilians being armed and forming militias amongst each other. President Bashar Assad tried to emulate his father by slaughtering innocent civilians which made the situation worse. Also, another reason why the conflict escalated is because Mr. Assad government was untenable and outdated, so when things started to get worse he fell back on his ability to kill people. His actions showed that the government was weak and he couldn’t resort to anything else but killing. It took too long for the international community to intervene. (NEWS) I disagreed with the economist’s beliefs that president Obama should have gone to war. President Obama’s involvement is bad for our economy because we would then have to spend unnecessary money to finance the war. Attacking Syria would cause more complication that is going to be difficult to deal with, as we have experienced from our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States has problems like dealing with gun violence; it wouldn’t be a smart choice to intervene with another country’s problems when we haven’t solved our own. The economist’s idea of letting Mr. Obama give Mr. Assad a ultimatum to hand over the chemical weapons is a bad idea because if Mr.Assad refuses then he will be shown little mercy, which will lead to future retaliation.
In addition, If President Assad had not cooperate, I would have advised president Obama to declare full military support including finance, training and weapons to the opposition groups. Secondly, I would have advised him to unite the Arab League of Nations (countries) and advise them to pressure Assad to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction under their supervision. I believe that the involvement of other Arab