More Opinions On Syria from the NYT - 4 views

• 
  #1 Sarah Asch on 04 Sep 13

   

  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/friedman-arm-and-shame.html?ref=opinion
  
  Do you think the NYT is covering the Syria debate in an unbiased way?
  Does this article get the points across in a way that is easy for a reader to understand (without too much political jargon)?
  Do you agree with Friedman about how to handle Syria?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/friedman-arm-and-shame.html?ref=opinion" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/friedman-arm-and-shame.html?ref=opinion</a> <br /> <br /> Do you think the NYT is covering the Syria debate in an unbiased way? <br /> Does this article get the points across in a way that is easy for a reader to understand (without too much political jargon)? <br /> Do you agree with Friedman about how to handle Syria?</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #2 Bridget Lowry on 14 Sep 13

   

  This is an opinion piece, so it is definitely not unbiased. It also appears that Friedman makes a few assumptions. For example, it says that the United Nations Security Council is meaningless because of China and Russia. However, the point of the Council is to have opinions from countries with differing interests from ours. While these interests may be greedy and inhuman, the Council is not meaningless because of them.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">This is an opinion piece, so it is definitely not unbiased. It also appears that Friedman makes a few assumptions. For example, it says that the United Nations Security Council is meaningless because of China and Russia. However, the point of the Council is to have opinions from countries with differing interests from ours. While these interests may be greedy and inhuman, the Council is not meaningless because of them.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #3 Emma Boczek on 25 Sep 13

   

  Though I agree with Friedman when he says that the situation is a "wickedly complex problem" that requires a more subtle fix than Obama's proposed "one-time 'shock and awe' missile attack against Syrian military targets," there are some major flaws in his proposed solution. Simply arming the Free Syrian Army is a one-foot-in approach that leaves the dirty work to the Syrians while we pour military funds into a conflict that, despite the lack of a U.S. attack, indirectly involves us in a far-away war. The second part of Friedman's solution would be "a moral response - a shaming" that "can be an unlimited response, not a limited one." The problem with this "unlimited" response is that it is so unspecific. How does a country go about shaming an individual? Will that dissuade Assad from continuing to attack his own people? I think Friedman framed the conflict well but oversimplified the ideal course of action.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Though I agree with Friedman when he says that the situation is a "wickedly complex problem" that requires a more subtle fix than Obama's proposed "one-time 'shock and awe' missile attack against Syrian military targets," there are some major flaws in his proposed solution. Simply arming the Free Syrian Army is a one-foot-in approach that leaves the dirty work to the Syrians while we pour military funds into a conflict that, despite the lack of a U.S. attack, indirectly involves us in a far-away war. The second part of Friedman's solution would be "a moral response - a shaming" that "can be an unlimited response, not a limited one." The problem with this "unlimited" response is that it is so unspecific. How does a country go about shaming an individual? Will that dissuade Assad from continuing to attack his own people? I think Friedman framed the conflict well but oversimplified the ideal course of action.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top