Night of Terror: Paris Attacks
A body, covered by a sheet, is seen on the sidewalk outside the Bataclan theater
Due to the recent events that have been happening around the world by a group called ISIS, many candidates that are currently running for presidency have changed their stance and ideologies upon tackling the now current world issue. While they have already responded and commented about the incidents, each candidate didn't seem to have any understanding of what to do or any strategy whatsoever. It was noted that "they seemed to encapsulate the impotence of politicians who so far have only words to combat a burgeoning terror threat." Although they could not answer the questions to help boost their own stance in the runnings they were able to "offer a confident contrast with an administration that now appears to lack success in the fight against terrorism." The GOP candidates have now turned the table by using these events to attack the Democratic party and those who run under the Obama administration, namely Hillary Clinton. It goes without saying that it was a harsh political irony that the killings in France took place on the same day that an interview aired in which the President argued that his strategy had "contained" ISIS in Iraq and Syria, although it was still a better response than Trump who for instance, said this week that he would "bomb the s--- out of ISIS." The GOP have already turned this crisis into an opportunity to grant them leverage by arguing that they should increase restrictions on immigration policies and gun control. To quote Trump, "When you look at Paris -- you know the toughest gun laws in the world, Paris -- nobody had guns but the bad guys. You can say what you want, but if they had guns, if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry ... it would've been a much, much different situation." The former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has already weighed in on the situation by saying that "if a left-wing, politically correct country like France will close its borders, it's time for us to put a moratorium on people coming here from countries where there are people with al Qaeda or ISIS ties," calling for a stricter set of regulations for immigration. But the Paris attacks also expose Republicans to political vulnerabilities over ISIS. While the GOP loves the kind of hawkish rhetoric that Rubio and others doled out at a presidential debate in Milwaukee, America remains weary of foreign wars, leaving little political room for the new commitments proposed by Republicans. And the legacy of President George W. Bush, whom many Democrats blame for ripping the lid off boiling sectarian strife in the Middle East with the invasion of Iraq, continues to haunt the GOP when it comes to national security policy.
How will these events affect the campaigns by both parties? What is your opinion on each party's stance and response to these situations(might want to read full article)? What do you think we should do in terms of foreign policy? What is your opinion on the matter?
In the wake of the Paris attacks, the US is in a tough spot because our gut response of "increasing" security may lead to the reverse in the long term. The Republicans are right in some regard, we do need to guarantee our own security, but shutting our borders and tearing down encryption may eventually be a risk to domestic security, while on the flip side there is a slight possibility the Democrats' plan might pose a security risk if not implemented in full. In terms of foreign policy the US needs to do everything possible to avoid causing another Iraq, otherwise we'll be doing this all over again in seven years. Over all--no matter what course the nation takes in responding to this issue--it must be done in a united fashion, because a solution which is constantly undercut by the opposing party will end up being worse than no solution at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that was well put.
DeleteWhy is the font so big
ReplyDeleteWhy is the font so small now
ReplyDeleteI DON'T FRICKIN KNOW
DeleteWatch the language people!
DeleteThe issue and threat of ISIS will definitely become a key talking point in the campaigns of both party candidates, as the topic is not only timely relevant, but could also play a significant role at home. As of now, neither party seems to have a clear cut stance on the situation, however from what is currently evident, the solution does not lie in closing America's borders to migrants seeking asylum. Yes, the US does need to put a larger military presence in the Middle East to not only contain ISIS, but to also protect key assets and maintain the relative peace in the region.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe US has a responsibility to protect American citizens, and help those around the world. The US has the ability to provide aid, military support, and protection to other countries, which leads to the question of whether we should or should not use our power. I feel that since the US has the power, we are morally obligated to use it to help others. This will affect who people select as president, seeing as the use of military might is a highly controversial and important topic. When American's go to vote, they will certainly weigh the different foreign policies offered by each candidate.
ReplyDeleteThese events will affect both campaign parties because as stated in the article the candidates have struggled when confronted with national security questions or have argued that their lack of experience is actually an asset that appeals to voters fed up with career politicians. In my opinion each parties stance should stay relativity neutral in order to no arouse conflict among the people which could jeopardize their campaign. They have been doing a fine job so far. The United States should act in terms of foreign policy with not getting involved unless the conflict is brought directly too us in order to not go deeper in debt and risk more casualties. My opinion on this tragic event is that it might affect our elections depending on how the candidates react and their actions that they take in the next debate.
ReplyDeleteBoth parties will be under a lot of scrutinization, as every move they make in regards to ISIS and terrorism will be critiqued. The Republicans' desire to use violence, or, as Trump said, "bomb the s**t out of ISIS," may be too rash and lead to more problems as the middle east resents our actions even more. We also don't want to accidentally bomb any innocent civilians, which has happened before. On the Democratic side, I think that we do need to be especially careful security-wise. I was not aware that there was an article in NATO saying that if one of our allies is attacked, it's an attack on us. This changes my opinion slightly, as I originally believed that we should stay completely out of it. I think we need to move decisively and consider all the facts, but as France's ally we do have a responsibility to help.
ReplyDeleteThese times ask us trying questions which both impact our security and further define our national character. Both parties reactions are understandable. The Republicans are fearful of our security attempting to bar Syrian immigration, while this is understandable it doesn't necessarily mean it is right. When we look at how people immigrate using a temporary VISA is much more common than legal immigration with about 20 million people entering the country with a temporary VISA just last year. By restricting the legal immigration of Syrians ( which includes a 2 year screening process) we reject refugees on the run from a corrupt murderous dictator and ISIS whilst continuing a process which allows 20 million people in each year. This is just morally unsound and hypocritical from a country made up of immigrants. We must advocate tolerance similar to the democratic platform. Isis is a legitimate threat to national security, there is no easy fix to confronting this issue, it involves us responding with rational layered solutions. We need to have a serious discussion about our role in this fight. Manipulating fear and promoting Islamophobia is not how we should go about it.
ReplyDeleteThese times ask us trying questions which both impact our security and further define our national character. Both parties reactions are understandable. The Republicans are fearful of our security attempting to bar Syrian immigration, while this is understandable it doesn't necessarily mean it is right. When we look at how people immigrate using a temporary VISA is much more common than legal immigration with about 20 million people entering the country with a temporary VISA just last year. By restricting the legal immigration of Syrians ( which includes a 2 year screening process) we reject refugees on the run from a corrupt murderous dictator and ISIS whilst continuing a process which allows 20 million people in each year. This is just morally unsound and hypocritical from a country made up of immigrants. We must advocate tolerance similar to the democratic platform. Isis is a legitimate threat to national security, there is no easy fix to confronting this issue, it involves us responding with rational layered solutions. We need to have a serious discussion about our role in this fight. Manipulating fear and promoting Islamophobia is not how we should go about it.
ReplyDeleteThe recent tragedy in Paris will weigh heavily on both parties due to the implications it has on foreign policy. The US already deals with much controversy surrounding its attitudes towards immigration and place as a world leader. Republicans have long argued to close borders from immigrants, and the fact that the attackers in Paris came in as Syrian refugees aid their stance. However, the US has also experienced the negativity that surrounds the US becoming too involved in the Middle East. Both parties will have to address their stances on foreign policy more thoroughly, explaining what types of military action if any will be taken against terrorist groups, like ISIS. Historically, going into the Middle East turns out badly for the US because we leave behind a fragile government that is propped up with out support, and when we leave , it reverts back to its original structure.
ReplyDeleteThese times ask us trying questions which both impact our security and further define our national character. Both parties reactions are understandable. The Republicans are fearful of our security attempting to bar Syrian immigration, while this is understandable it doesn't necessarily mean it is right. When we look at how people immigrate using a temporary VISA is much more common than legal immigration with about 20 million people entering the country with a temporary VISA just last year. By restricting the legal immigration of Syrians ( which includes a 2 year screening process) we reject refugees on the run from a corrupt murderous dictator and ISIS whilst continuing a process which allows 20 million people in each year. This is just morally unsound and hypocritical from a country made up of immigrants. We must advocate tolerance similar to the democratic platform. Isis is a legitimate threat to national security, there is no easy fix to confronting this issue, it involves us responding with rational layered solutions. We need to have a serious discussion about our role in this fight. Manipulating fear and promoting Islamophobia is not how we should go about it.
ReplyDeleteThe United States is an international police force that works to keep peace all around the world. I think these events will affect both parties because candidates will start to focus more on the ISIS issue and share their stances in hope of gaining support. I like the republicans stance of immediate retaliation because ISIS is posing a threat to Americas security and we need to act now before it is too late.
ReplyDeleteThe campaigns will be affected for both parties, as they will have to shift their focus to foreign policy and terrorism to respond to threats from ISIS. ISIS has now shown the world the extent they are willing to go, and has had the spotlight in the media, so people want to vote for a candidate who has a plan to fight for their safety. The threat of ISIS is becoming more and more real to the average citizen, so a politicians stance on how to deal with terrorism will be crucial to their success.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican and Democratic parties need to come to a consensus when they eventually decide to take action on ISIS. Both parties do not really have a plan except for Trump, who wants to bomb them. The US needs to protect US citizens and the people around the world. Whatever the US decides to do it has to be a unified decision.
ReplyDeleteWhile the tragedy in France is obviously atrocious, I feel like candidates use instances like these to gain political favor from citizens. Each party is trying their best to appeal to their voter base with plans and ideas that, like Mateo said, they don't really know much about. Obama is stuck in a sticky situation: Does he leave office amidst a war or do nothing? Pressure not only nationally, but also internationally is building as Hollande visits Obama today to try and work out an agreement to work together to wipe out ISIS. What this will entail (troops, more bombs, etc) is unclear, but hopefully does not end like the last Middle Eastern conflict.
ReplyDeleteThe events will affect the campaigns in both parties, because all American people both Republican and Democrat want action to be taken against the terrorist groups in the middle east. I believe that both parties have a general idea of what needs to be done because at this point we can no longer drag our feet in the ground. Action has to be taken immediately or it will be too late. Personally I think that we need to show that we are resilient as a country and we must take action so that we are not perceived as vulnerable to attack.
ReplyDeleteIt will affect both parties campaign strategies because they will have to address and openly state their policy on addressing ISIS as well as refugees. it is no longer a question then can avoid. I think that the republicans are too rash in their decision. It is not as simple as "bombing the shit out of" ISIS. I think that we should not be closing off our borders to refugees as they are not the enemies, rather, they are victims of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThese events will affect the campaigns by both parties because they will have to acknowledge how serious of an issue this is and create a plan that is accepted by both the country and their supporters. Other than Trump, I believe that these parties are offering solutions to receive more credit and support rather than expressing their true beliefs. In a situation regarding something as serious as ISIS, there isn't really a correct way to go about it. No matter what path we take in attempting to stop them, more violence will follow. We need to get rid of our bad reputation of national security policy and become more involved in foreign affairs because ISIS will continue to grow more powerful if we don't take some sort of action.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of the Paris attacks, foreign policy and terrorism now play a pressing issue to be debated and acted upon through each party's campaign. Though America has been characterized as "the world's police," history displays too many occurrences in which our country intervened in someone else's battlefield, and inflicted more harm than it did help. The parties ultimately need to settle a happy medium between the Republicans' violent yet appropriately urgent approach and that of the Democrats wanting to go about this cautiously by increasing security, exemplifying effective and collaborative communication between our "united" states.
ReplyDeleteThese recent events will bring up in both parties candidates their stance on foreign policy and their suggestion on how to combat the brutality presented by ISIS. I believe that although there is no simple solution, we must not rely on exploiting American's fear and acting in rash ways like bombing the Middle East instead we must work with other countries to shut down ISIS in a tactical way that does not end up with us in another Iraq situation.
ReplyDelete