On Monday, you had the assignment of defending a position that was given to you. Rather then give your own opinion or come to your own decision, I told you what you believe. Now it's your turn. I want to know what you think.
Based on what you learned through the readings, as well as through the class presentations, what do you think should be the direction of U.S. policy toward the terrorist threat? Feel free to use some of the positions proposed in our four options, or come up with ideas of your own.
As with the presentations, remember that your argument will be more convincing if back up by evidence.
I encourage everyone to engage in dialogue with your classmates. Please keep the exchanges respectful.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
In my honest opinion, I believe that trying to use total military force to end terrorism is a pitiful, ineffective method. I think that the U.S. should first find the main cause of terrorism, collaborate with other countries, and then diplomatically solve the terrorist problems. We would only have to use military force for our defense. After this has happened, the world would be more at peace and there would be less casualties, which means less broken hearts. It is true that there would be more economical and diplomatic problems, but our community would be more calm and free.
I agree with Sarah that using only military forces won't solve any problems because it could go on forever and nobody will want to be the first to back off. After the 9-11 attack in 2001 the U.S. collaborated with other countries and consulted with the U.N. for ways to fight off terrorism. When doing that you join countries and have lots of minds joining together to help state your opinion. Instead of using only militay forces add diplomacy and collaborate to protect your country.
Working on the project really helped me gain an opinion and I now do believe that we should defend our homeland. I'm not a fan of violence and cruel treatings which is why I like this option. It isn't so nice and unviolant that it won't work but the u.s would be safer and not have to use such violence. I also agree with Katie and Sarah they both made great points. But im not sure if the other countries want to collaborate, I mean what's in it for them?
I agree with Katie, Sarah, and Zoe. But also, while listening to other people's presentations, I realized that using miliatary forces overseas has killed lots of innocent people in the Middle East. Also, we've lost alot of soldiers ourselves. What we should do is protect our homeland from future terrorist attacks. You never know, maybe if we used our money on our security, we can protect ourselves from future attacks, and prevent the devastion of 9/11. And I agree with Zoe, what is collabarting with other countries going to do? What's in it for them? They wouldn't gain from our gain..
And Sarah, I completely agree, but how do we know other countries would want to collaborate with us?
In my opinion, going to war really does not seem right. I understand that it has stopped terrorist attacks since 9/11, but I think there should be some other way to prevent it from occurring. Maybe instead of going to war and creating even more of a fight, we could settle this in a peaceful manner, because it seems to me like its only creating more fire. Also, this war could go on FOREVER. Neither one of our countries will want to back off, like Sarah and Katie said. I am heavily against war and anything that could cause more feuding between the U.S and other countries.
If we use military force against terrorism we will gain hatred from other terrorist groups. we should do thinks such as destroy one of their bunkers full of weapons and armor. If we can do this then they can be weak and then they can surrender due to the loss of thousands of dollars in equipment.
Some countries have had to deal with terrorist attacks and if they don't want to join with the U.S. then they can do whatever they want to help rid their country of terrorism, but our allies that are willing to do whatever they can to despose of terrorism might want to join with us. If they don't, then we can take the information we already know and look much more closely into what the cause of terrorism is.
I agree with Sarah and all the others who said that total military force will not stop terrorism. I believe that America should defend the homeland with more policies such as extra security at potential targets. Security on public transports like air planes and buses should also increase. This would be a lot easier if all the troops in the middle east came home. If we also increase spending in intelligence agencies like the CIA we could combat terrorism more efficiently. Trials against suspected terrorists should be done separately from normal trials and if found guilty, then they should be interrogated. And when it comes to foreighn policy, we should only send resources, but as little troops as possible to countries in need.
I don't think violence is the answer in this situation, because we've lost at least 50,000 lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we haven't really brought an end to terrorism. Just as Mr. Veliz said before, "We are not going to end things peacefully and at a table where they surrender if the people we're dealing with are willing to strap a bomb to themselves and walk into a cafe and blow themselves up." Violence isn't the answer in this situation. I'd say collaborate, but only use military force if it is absolutely neccesary. We've had enough people killed.
Sarah - Interesting points. If you think that our military operations lead to more terrorists attacks, then what lead to the attacks of 9/11? How do we address those causes? Do you think that a group that is capable of the attacks of 9/11 would be willing to engage in diplomacy? If not, then what should we do?
Katie - What should the US do if we fail to find partners? Should we be willing to go it alone?
Zoe and Malak - Would simply defending the homeland - focusing on homeland defense - prevent another 9/11 attack? What would you say to people that argue that taking the fight "over there" keeps us safer here?
Caroline - Is there a point at which you would support military action? If not, then how should the US respond to a 9/11 style attack? Which other country are you talking about in your comment?
Michael - Provide some evidence from the readings. Not sure I understand your position.
Thomas - How would bringing the troops home make homeland defense easier? Is it the goal of our current war on terror to end terrorism, or to prevent future attacks? Some would say that keeping the fight "over there" has prevented additional attacks here at home. How would you respond to that argument?
Jeremiah - How many have we lost in Iraq? You have stated what you wouldn't do, but what would you do?
Notes to Everyone - A good start. Can't wait to see what your classmates have to say. Please remember to craft your arguments carefully. Think about what you want to say, consider any arguments that might be made against it, then deliver it as clearly as possible.
Very Important: Proof-read your comment before clicking on publish. Attention to writing quality - grammar, spelling, word usage, sentence structure, etc. - is very important. Remember, everyone in the world can see your comments.
If we bring the troops home then we would have extra people hear with experience against terrorism to help defend our country. I also am not saying that we should stop fighting in terrorism in the middle east, but to combat it differently. Terrorists to not fight head to head but use gorilla war fare like the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War. If we increase spending in the CIA then we could have agents in the middle east to kid nap and if necessary, kill important terrorist leaders and initiate small coordinated assaults on their bases, or even getting people on the inside of the organizations to tear them apart. There would be minimal civilian and soldier casualties. Targeted killings may conflict with the law, but what is the difference between killing a terrorist who is trying to kill you and killing a terrorist who is plotting to kill, and probably already has, many soldiers and civilians.
Mr.Veliz,
people may say it is safer for the fight to be over in other countries but really that's just because they don't have to think about all of the deaths and horrible things going on there. The farther away terrorism gets from the U.S. the less we can learn about it. If we spent our money on our homeland we could get better intelligence tools and find out about terrorist plots before they even happened. Then if we had spent money on strengthening our security the terrorists wouldn't even be able to breach our border. There wouldnt be war at the U.S. And there wouldn't be U.S. soldiers dying everyday doing something that isn't even stopping terrorism!
Mr. Veliz,
If the U.S. fails to find partners then we definitely shouldn't force them too. As one of the many proverbs go "better to be alone than in bad company". We should focus on defending our homeland and finding the real cause of terrorism. Our troups should stay in the Middle East to be ready to use military force if they have to. The U.S. will need to be much more cautious. I think the U.S. should be willing to go out alone because if those other countries are putting down an offer to join with the U.S. and go out all by themselves, then the U.S. can go out alone too.
I belive we should try to gain an aliance with other countries aganist terrorism. If we go in guns a blazing we will just tick them off and cause World War III. If we instead send over diplomats to negoatiate with the more terrorist infeated country's leaders and work with our allies we can make the terrorist stand ddown. We should also make an effort to taregt their ways of getting money and weapons. By doing this we can also save money and put the money to better uses. We will also not have to send more soilders into war which will save lives.
Well Mr. Veliz, if there were to be another 9/11 attack, or any terrorist attack, we would be prepared because we'd be ready to defend ourselves this time. We would have more security to help prevent any terrorist attack,and we'd be more experienced. And if our security were to be more advanced, terrorists would not even be able to cross our land because we would be wellprotected. It will prevent the sadness of losing another soldier overseas. We could just stop war and stop spending so much money on weapons overseas. The war with Afgahn will never end, and neither will terrorism. But if we are more secured we can keep ourselves protected in case another attack would happen.
Mr. Veliz, here's what I think:
I don't believe that there would be 9/11 style attack if the U.S stopped investing in weapons and war overseas. We would have enough money to STOP the war that is going on right now, and worry about our security to prevent another terrorist attack from ever occurring again.
I also find it ridiculous that we are losing innocent people to a war that, honestly, doesn't seem like it needs to be going on. I understand that ending the war could take a long time, but better sooner than later, so we don't have to lose any more people. Its for a good cause, and its worth it.
But, under some circumstances is war the answer. For instance, World War II was triggered because Japan bombed Pearl Habor. Now, the bombing of Pearl Harbor is very similar to 9/11, but I don't think we handled going to war this time around very well.
So, to answer your question directly, if we were not prepared for a 9/11 style attack in the future, we could go to war for the right reasons. Only then would I support military actions. I was referring to Iraq in my last comment.
I also agree with Carleigh! Teaming up with other countries against terrorism seems like a very good idea. Maybe even forming an alliance with another country if we have to go to war would strengthen us.
Well, I think that 9-11 took place because of a few reasons. First of all, our support for Israel has angered the Al Qaeda group and other terrorist groups that have hatred for the U.S. Another reason is that Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, and the other terrorists of the group thought that the U.S. was full of mindless western technology. Also, they thought that the U.S. shouldn't just allow the people of America to follow any religion they liked. They would have forced us to strongly follow a single religion if they were the leaders of the U.S. Now, moving on, if we were to address these root causes, I would say that our country shouldn't change any flaw of theirs, except the one of attacking other countries too much when we could just solve it diplomatically. But we should try to solve our problems with our enemies, friends, and neighbors so that we could collaborate with all of them and create a peaceful community that has time and money to spend on jobs, healthcare, and other economical problems that we have. If those groups aren't willing to solve problems diplomatically, well, the U.S. and the other countries just have to cut off all trading with them and tighten all sorts of security, especially in airports, Border Patrol, and important buildings.
Oh, that comment was based on Mr. Veliz's and Malak's comment (mostly Mr. Veliz's comment).
I agree with everyone about using force against terrorism. Countries might give up wars but terrorists will not until they reach their goal. If we continue to fight in Afghanistan we are going to be losing more soldiers while getting nowhere. I think we should protect ourselves and improve our security instead of starting more and more wars. I think we should improve the border patrol mainly because terrorists illegally cross the border and bombing major city's. With this there won't be a chance of another 9/11 attack.
Also, I reread my previous comment and I know what you mean Mr, Veliz. I don't know why I said that.
I agree with Michael, fighting in the war and losing more and more people is getting us nowhere.
I agree Michael!
What I think is fairly similar to Sarah's. Except that I don't really pitty the method of total military force, but I don't really agree with it either. I can respect a method involving military force if given good reasons.
I think that we should defend America. we should let the other countries defend themselves, but not spend billions for senseless violence. We should save the money to make more jobs, increase security, and help our own economy. What matters is our country, not the others. We need to make sure that another 9/11 won't happen again!
I think Thomas and Sarah make a fantastic point! Great job!
I think that all countries should first come together and try to stop terrorism with cooperation and respect for the rule of law. If that doesn't work than we should just do whatever it takes even if it means using the drone program and breaking the law. Or even if we have kill suspected terrorists even if it is against the law. But like I have already said we need to try and cooperate first.
I agree with Caleb about how countries should come together to end Terrorism. I also think that instead of adding more and more soliders in The Midddle East, we could team up with countries like Norway and other Countries that have been affected by terrorism to put an end to it. That way, instead of putting more soldiers in, each country could put an even amout of soldiers in the war. Then that way we could posibly win this war against them.
I also agree with Matt. Thomas and Sarah did a great job!
I think we shouls use a combination of military force and diplomatic solutions. Obviously fighting terrorist has stopped a terrorist attack from happening but has also killed a lot of people. Fighting them occupies them so they can't attack. If you also send diplomats there to help the innocent civilians then we will be helping them and making them happier and more grateful because we would be helping them while fighting the terrorist preventing a strike it also lets us send money to help the economy while not being worried that they will give it to terrorist.
To add what i said, by fighting the terrorist they would be occupied and wouldn't be able to strike so there is not a huge need for defenses not saying we don't need them just saying we won't need as much homeland protection.
I also agree with people saying we should alliance with other countries fighting terrorism so we would not have to use to many of our soldiers.
I agree violence will kill thousands of people but how else will we stop them because if we dont stop them there in Iraq and Afganistan, will they come here to attack us in the United States killing many more people? If we send military units there they can't bring the fight here to kill civilians. When people sighn up for the military they know they could be going to war and thats why they sighned up, to protect us here in the United States. Not that im saying i want people to die, I just think that making terrorist coming here in the U.S. would be like inviting them to kill more people.
Improving security in the United States will help against some terrorist attacks but not all of them. What if the terrorist illegally crossed the border and didn't go through the security, they could be carrying bombs. Also how would our security help against nuclear missle and planes that they had obtained. Even with our security it would be extremly difficult to avoid those attacks.
I definately agrre with Sarah Kim....Violence on results in wars.
Mr Veliz's 4th period Anna
Well Evan you make a point, but if we had advanced security, terrorists would HAVE to go through the security no matter what to make sure they aren't carrying any bombs, or any other deadly weapons. And they wouldn't be able to cross the border illegly if our security were to be more stable and our security would be on the look out. About the missles, terrorists wouldn't do this because possibly if we were to stop the wars terrorists wouldn't have as much hatred toward us. Atleast, thats what I believe. I believe if we brought all our millary overseas home, it'd stop more terrorist attacks. We would solve all the problems diplomatically. Of course terrorists are always going to disagree with what we believe, we can't make them like us. But agree with what you said.
I was going to say the same thing Malak!
**But I agree with what you said.
I agree with everyone who has comented. You all make very good points. I very much agree with Sarah when she said that military force is pitiful. It has been killing alot of innocent people. And I also like Zoe, would defend our homeland. Other people have their military for their country, and we have ours. By doing this we could improve our military force. I also agree with some of the things in Option one. I agree with the idea of keeping communication lines open with other contries. Also I think we should defend our homeland and occasionally help out other contries because one day, we might need a favor back.
The option that would not create the most violence in my opinion is option 4. If there would be any arguments it would be that the country wouldnt want our country coming into their country,and talking out there problems. If I was thinking about the most violence way to kill terrorist, the bombs would be the way to go. The bad part of bombs is that it would kill inocent people, and it won't prevent terrorist from croping up it will only make more. The reason it want prevent terrorist from coming up because they would get more angry, and more determined to kill US lives.
The option that would not create the most violence in my opinion is option 4. If there would be any arguments it would be that the country wouldnt want our country coming into their country,and talking out there problems. If I was thinking about the most violence way to kill terrorist, the bombs would be the way to go. The bad part of bombs is that it would kill inocent people, and it won't prevent terrorist from croping up it will only make more. The reason it want prevent terrorist from coming up because they would get more angry, and more determined to kill US lives.
I advise Americans to stop wars. That will cause extra wars. Since wars cause wars then the wars cause extra wars because the wars that caused wars will cause other wars with other war countries.
I actually agree with the opinion that I got for the project. I think we should just focus on protecting our on homeland. I also agree with Sarah and Katie that sending military won't solve anything. It may HELP keep the terrorists from coming over here but it's not going to stop them from TRYING to attack. So I honestly think we should just focus on defending our homeland and bring some of our military home but, just for safe measures, keep some over there.
Agreed, Rebekah.
Rebekah B.-I agree with you, I think its best for the U.S. to defend its homeland, instead of sending soldiers overseas to fight, which isn't solving the problems the U.S. faces from terrorism today.
I agree with Rebekah she makes a good point. We should defend our homeland, whatever it takes.
Why will nobody agree with Mr. Anonymous?
I think that using military fouce is bad. bad baecause we try to kill one person or a few but we end up killing hundreds of inesent people. I think we should take a different approach at terrorism because violence isnt always the way.
I think they should be forceful, but very careful.
Post a Comment