Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome class!
All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Check out the following link. Nancy Pelosi has helped upgrade the menu to haute cuisine for Congress members.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html
Martin Luther King Jr.
Check out the following link. Nancy Pelosi has helped upgrade the menu to haute cuisine for Congress members.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html
Blog Archive
About Me
13 comments:
The question on page 17 asked should Congress try to block President Bush's ability to send additional troops to Iraq?
My opinion is that Bush should not be able to send
additional troops to Iraq. The reason I say that
because it seems like the more troops he send the
more troops dying. I understand that where at war
right now but it's not right to send troops to Iraq if
Iraq don't want to change. Also I think that the
troops should come home because of the families
who need there spouses with them. Bush should
bring the troops home and just nuc Iraq and then
there won't be any war.
I read pages 314-315, "Fighting Afghanistan's Narco Trade" and my thoughts on the subject is stated strongly in the book. That would be that the drug problem is not just a drug problem, but it is a economic problem that affects people of all levels. Being someone that has come up on the wrong side of the tracks, I have seen the worse side of life and what comes with it. I can understand the feeling that someone has when they get involved with narcotics. When you are at a low place in life, your environment is extremely hostile, and it seems like there is no way out, you resort to whatever means possible to better yourself and your family. This does not always speak bad about a persons character or say that they are evil at heart. Many people that are involved in this kind of industry, first do so out of desperation not out of personal power or anything along those lines. When people can't finically support themselves or their families they get into a dark place mentally and their normal moral values go out the window. There becomes the thought that " I can get away with it, I won't get caught, or I'll Just do this for a short time". For the most part this is incorrect, once someone involves themselves into this there is normally a negative outcome. This example alone is not the only economic problem that drugs can cause, but it the first one that most people see. This problem causes a snowball effect where one problem cause another and another. The problems tend to pile upon one another until it becomes a global issue and some kid from a good rich neighborhood overdoses on some drug and then all the sudden drugs become the hot button topic. In order to solve such a problem we as a society would have to look deeper than just the drugs themselves. We would have to look at the financial, social, and overall economic impacts
In the point counterpoint article we read, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) argued that Bush has a well planned strategy that includes involvement with and the eventual takeover by the newly established Iraqi government. He also dismisses the attrition as a necessity of war, says that the ultimate goal is more valuable. Well, lemme just say, Mr. Isakson, I don't care even a little bit about the relative merits or faults of Bush's Iraq strategy (I mean I do, and I think its disastrous, but bear with me for the moment). What I care about is the President's apparent and flagrant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, which is the backbone for this country that he swears he's protecting. There is a system of checks and balances in this country, as any elementary school students could tell you. When the president ignores Congress, which arguably more accurately represents the varied and often disparate views of the populace, he is trampling both the Constitution and the American people. And he smiles and pats us on the head and tells us everything is gone be jus fine, thank you very much. I don't necessarily believe that everything the people want is for the best, but we have a system in place that ensures that the people's opinion is heard and acted upon. The President's actions (the war in Iraq, ignoring Congress, pardoning Scooter Libby, the Patriot Act, illegal wire taps, etc. etc.) threaten the very fiber of our government. I know its not perfect, but its what we've got going for us, and its done pretty well up till now. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except everything else we've tried." Well, President Bush, we've tried despotism, no thanks, we'll stick with what we got.
Should Congress try to block President Bush’s ability to send additional troops to Iraq? (pg 17)
In the birth of America, British Colonist were willing to fight and die for the land they had come to love. They united against a common enemy, fought for a common belief--that men who wished to be free must take up arms in order to secure that freedom. They stood against the power of the British Empire, virtually alone, willing to sacrifice their lives to become free men. It was in that moment, in that sacrifice that they became Americans and no longer the subjects of an empire.
United, they attained help in order to become a free and sovereign people. However, they were a people not blinded by the ease of the task before them and knew that if they wished to be free, it must come at their own toil, blood, and pain. They were willing to sacrifice all they held dear in order to gain the freedoms they felt their god had bestowed upon them. They spoke out against injustice when it could mean their deaths. They formed a union of men, and states, and ideas, and were willing to compromise, to listen, to talk, to argue, to fight, in order to hammer out the beginnings of a great and prosperous nation.
We now are at a time, when other nations claim they want freedom. We are now at a time when we must decide if we will continue their fight. We are now at a time when we should look back at how this nation was formed. If a man wishes to be free he must be willing to take up arms in order to secure that freedom. If a nation wishes to be free they must be prepared to unite, compromise, listen, talk, argue, and fight in order to hammer out the beginnings of their own lands. To continually claim to want freedom, but never rise to the level of commitment that freedom demands, then perhaps that is a nation not strong enough or powerful enough to deserve it. The price of freedom begins with oneself. To expect others to gain it for you is to always be at their mercy.
It is well past time for Iraqis to stand. America cannot do it for them. America cannot continue to carry a nation that must learn to walk on its own. Freedom is not easy. It is not for the weak. If a nation cannot, or will not, bring themselves to secure their own freedom, then it is well past time to bring the Americans home.
The question on page 57 under Security in the Twenty-First Century asked if preemptive war is good policy.
I don't think it can really be policy which a country follows, but more of an option that can be considered when dealing with threats and potential threats. If there is a chance that a country may be obtaining WMDs or breaking a treaty then it would be a good solution after giving warning to that country. For example, before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, Saddam was given ample amount of time to comply with the U. N.'s resolution but still would not allow inspectors to do their job. If they had WMDs or material that could of been used to make WMDs, I believe they could of easily disposed of it when Saddam would not let inspectors to do their job. If they never had the material he still went against the sanctions the U.N. set. In this case the best thing that could of been done was to start a preemptive strike against Iraq. If Saddam was allowed to continue with his insubordination against the U.N., he may have developed WMD's later on and would of thought he did not have to listen to the rest of the world because the U.N. would not do anything. So in this case a preemptive strike was a not a bad thing. Preemptive war is not good policy, but should be kept as an option in certain situations.
I got my article from smart brief and internet publication that is sent to me at work. The title is Officials step up net neutrality efforts. "House Bill Aims to Ensure Providers Route Traffic Fairly." Broadband companies clashing with Washington about consumers having the right to get what they want from the internet, as fast as they want without pay for it.
The complaint is that Comcast is delaying some Internet traffic. Congressman Edward Markey introduced a bill that would change federal laws to make sure Internet traffic with similar protection phone calls which are required to connect without hesitation. Congressman Markey and Rep. Chip Pickering are proposing the Internet Freedom Preservation Act." The purpose of this is to maintain the freedom to use for lawful purposes broadband telecommunication network without unreasonable interfernce from or discrimination by network operators. The Bill would give the FCC more authority over the Internet and ensuring that it is delivering traffic fairly.
Time Warner is establishing a trial in Texas which would have consumers pay more for downloading movies and over high capacity content. Comcast and verizon are looking into this as well. AT&T is focusing on tracking pirated movies and other content across it's network.
It has been said that a picture speaks a thousand words. I have yet to see this proven wrong, no more so than with Christo Komarnitski’s illustration found on page 137 of our Global Issues book.
Here we see an individual tied to a stake awaiting his Execution! How does that speak a thousand words? You might ask. Alone this can be interpreted in many ways, but this particular image says so much more! The person awaiting execution is a cartoonist, and he is perched on top of a pile of pencils, with the executioner approaching with the torch!
It is here that the words start to flow from the picture. At first glance, viewers immediate interpretation might be that the cartoonist is angry about a cartoon being rejected. Or perhaps you see that the cartoonist is fighting for a right that we Americans take for granted the right to free speech!
We take this right for granted, but many argue that the right to free speech stops with speech! While others, including myself, believe that free speech should include all types of expression! But it is not my place to tell others what to think; this is just me exercising my right to free speech!
I read page 82-83. When Peacekeepers Prey Instead of Protect. U.N. seeking more women officers.
The issue is about how peacekeeping male soldiers preyed on innocent teenage girls, mainly under the age, where they were supposed to be helping out at. Most of the girls couldn’t speak English or even read anything. They even said that the abuse was even covered up as well as the babies that were born from abuse. Within the last two years, about 180 soldiers, police men, and civilians were dismissed because of the abuse. They are trying to get more women sent over than men for this very reason and more. For peacekeeping missions, women instead of men would stop all this abuse because misconduct by women police is just about non-existent. Women want to be sent over there for other reasons too. If people see that women can do the same as men on the missions, hopefully it will stop the violence on women and give women more respect. Women can also gather more information at certain places because guys aren’t allowed to see the women in certain places. This is why they are starting to send all women peacekeeping soldiers on missions.
I think it could help to send women instead of men for the most part. It will stop the abuse on the teenage girls. It might help with the violence and respect of women. But I don’t think it will help in all places. I think seeing all women, from the view point of the other places, will angry other nations and make them want to do more violence and give them less respect because they probably don’t want their women to be equal.
I read about the birth of OPEC on pages 211-212.
Basically, 5 countries got together to stabilize the world oil market. They grew to 12 countries but have been unsuccessful in the endeavor to keep the prices stabile. They used oil as a political tool and imposed an oil embargo on countries supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War. America decided to try to end the dependance on foreign oil and tightened up the conservation of it's own oil. Then oil was discovered in hard to reach North Sea. We developed technology to get the oil there and caused the breakdown of the Cartel, for a little while at least, we dropped the price of oil down by increasing our efficiency by 25% and finding these new oil reserves.
I think that this shows that we can end our dependency on foreign energy if we truly desire it. The technology is not 100% in place yet but we can go electric battery and use wind, and solar to charge them, use lighter weight materials to increase our fuel mileage on our vehicles, and maybe we can figure out an economical way to use the biofuels.
We can also tighten up more on the efficiency of our engines and maybe try to conserve a lot more. We all know we could, it would just cause a little inconvenience.
Clinton Offers Regrets for Husbands Remarks
Evidently, former President Bill Clinton made some misinterpreted remarks last month while campaigning for his wife Sen. Hillary Clinton in South Carolina. One remark was believe to suggest that Sen. Barack Obama would have success in South Carolina over Sen. Hillary Clinton because of his race. The remark that sparked that assumption came from Bill Clinton's comment that the Reverend Jesse Jackson had previously won primaries in that state during the 1980s. Critics interpreted that comment to suggest that because the Reverend Jesse Jackson is African American and he won, then because Barack Obama is African American he is sure to win also.
While in New Orleans Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the issue
concerning the remarks made by her husband. While speaking at the annual State of the Black Union forum she defended her husbands comments and at the same time offered regrets to anyone that may have been offended by such remarks. She also stated that many in the forum know her husband personally and "know his heart". She then ended her dissussion on the matter by saying "if anyone was offended by anything that was said...then obviously I regret that".
Senator Hillary Clinton then went on to disscuss another important issue. She stressed the importance of Democratic unity once the party's nominee is chosen. Sen. Clinton feels that Rep. John McCain will run a tough campaign and a divided Democratic party could cost them a chance at reclaiming the White House.
Will anti-americanism wane after Bush leaves office?
I'm almost inclined to answer yes, but it may depend on whose eyes one is looking through. Culturally, we are a powerhouse-our presence is known the world over. Our media, for all its pretense of truth and sense of duty, can be partly blamed for how
others view us. Unfortunately, we are viewed as the entities our media portrays. From Maury's dead horse otherwise known as the lie detector or paternity test shows to the stuttering mumblings of what is supposed to be our greatest hope and the jabs the contender throws. Bush's administration was typical of the jump before leap cliche we were always warned not to do as children. Bush's predecessor will have to be strong and very sure of the direction they want to take this country. This task will be huge if they want to improve our image, but at this stage it doesn't matter who takes the reigns. Our relations with middle eastern countries has been volatile at best, while we play friendly to make sure our best interests are fed above all else, we sometimes miss the bigger picture. The damage to our identity has been done and will take several years to recoup.
Could terrorists get nuclear weapons?
Global Issues, page 57 – 59
The author is saying, in this section, in so many words, that it is possible for terrorist to get nuclear weapons and that they are trying. To some extent, international preventive measures have successfully blocked their attempts.
Before the Soviet Union collapse in 1991, it had some 27,000 nuclear weapons. Although there are no verifiable reports of missing weapons or theft, a black market in nuclear material exists. The IAEA has recorded roughly 630 incidents of trafficking nuclear and other radioactive material through its Illicit Trafficking Database.
In spite of the unthinkable possibilities, many experts believe it is unlikely that a terrorist group could make the necessary fissile material by itself, because, the terrorist would have to steal the weapons-grade material or the weapon or acquire it from a rogue state. For a rogue state to give or sell nuclear weapons to terrorists would be the decision of the state. By doing so, the rogue state would be afraid of retaliation from other countries.
President Bush and many others believe a terrorist nuclear attack on American soil as the single greatest threat to the United States. To discourage such an attack on this country or any other country, nuclear fuel needs to be kept under tighter international controls and the country held accountable; the supplying state must be made aware of the consequences. In addition, the Nuclear Suppliers Group must put into place a more restrictive export controls for uranium.
Ideally, if countries would change their philosophy about nuclear weapons, there action would lead to more rapid nuclear weapons disarmament. There by reducing the lightly-hood of a nuclear attack.
#Should Congress try to block President Bush’s ability to send additional troops to Iraq?
In my opinion, Congress should try to block Bush’s ability to send additional troops to Iraq. We, Americans already have many doubts about the war and by adding more troops would be no brainer. Adding more troops in Iraq could actually hurt morale by taking more active-duty and especially part-time troops away from their home and families. I really believe that Iraq is no longer a threat to the U.S, and we have no business fighting in its civil war. We have already done damage attacking Iraq; it is the war we could never win. Due to this war, terrorist groups are encouraged and are attacking innocent civilians in Iraq. They have already killed many American troops. We don’t need to sacrifice our troops in order to keep peace and prosperity in Iraq. It is no longer our business.
In my opinion, not only congress should block President Bush’s ability to send additional troops to Iraq but we should try to bring them home as soon as possible. If we bring our troops back home, it will push Iraqi to make new laws and run their government accordingly. We can still help Iraqi government by providing arms, money, and training. By not sending troops to Iraq, we can free up millions of dollars that can be used for education, social security and many other areas to boost our economy. We should focus on our own country and be ready for any kind of disasters, may it be natural or terrorist threats. We have many other things to worry about and turn our attention to Iran, North Korea and other threats to world peace.
Post a Comment