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
30 comments:
Based on the readings, the presentations on Monday, and everything else I have learned during our Terrorism unit, I believe the United States should fight for terrorism to end by using diplomacy. For starters, when the militant group of Iranian students seized those 52 American citizens as hostages in November 1979, the United States used diplomacy and negotiating skills in order for the Iranian students to release the American citizens. Also, the United States has used economic embargoes against states it belives sponsors terrorism. I believe the United States should not use military retaliaton when necessary. In the past, the effectiveness of military retaliation has been very low. For example, when the United States attacked Libya with airstrikes in 1986 for bombing a disco in Berlin, Germany, there were several Libyan-sponsored attacks shortly after the attack against U.S. citizens, such as when Libyan terrorists bombed Pan Am flight 103, which killed 259 passengers and 11 people who were on the ground at the time.
Based on everything we learned I think we should use a little bit of each option to make one big proposal on terrorism. I think if we used all of the opitions we would have a major effect that would contain all of the ways that were presented in class.It would also make the country feel more safe. I also think we should stop targeted killings because it kills many civillians. It might also trigger an attack on the US.Killings of suspected terrorist is something i thinkshould be stopped but raather them be monitored closley or heavily interrigated. So this is wwhat I think the direction of US policy should be.
I agree with Darrell and think instead of hunting down the terrorists we should defend the United States and keep the high security at airports. I also believe that if we send troops to get the terrorists we would be increasing the risk of terrorist attacks on America
A. Williams - Good points. Do you think that there is a difference between clearly defined state actors (Libya, Iran, etc.) and the terrorist that we face today? At what point should we be willing to use military force?
Eden - If you take a little from each option, does this include military action? Would your prohibition on targeted killings include the recent killing of Osama bin Laden?
Darrell and Josh - What does defending the homeland mean? Get specific. What would you say to those that argue that keeping the fight "over there" has prevented further attacks here at home?
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.
I agree with Darrell that the U.S. should stick to defending the homeland, because there are hundreds or more of U.S. troops that died overseas. If we stuck to defending the homeland we could easily reduce the number of deaths of the U.S. troops. Also I feel like it is a waste to use billions of dollars killing people, good or bad, when they have to go overseas to hurt us. Another way this option would work is the U.S. sould be able to give up a little privacy to become more safe and secure. One of the only times that we have defended the homeland is the revolutanary war and it worked so I believe that the U.S. should defend the homeland.
Based on everything we learned about terrorism, I think the United State's policy on terrorism should be a mix of defending the homeland and using diplomacy, like Adrianna said. Many soldiers have died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and I think its time for soldiers to focus on the United States and not other countries. Although I do think that the U.S. should focus on defending the homeland, I don't think it should completely abandon all the countries in need of our help. As the readings on terrorism said, since the U.S. is such a strong country, we are very noticeable and often called upon to help other countries with our military power. I also agree with Adrianna, I think using diplomacy is essential to solving terrorism. We should try not to get involved in too many wars overseas and try to use diplomacy to solve terrorism while defending the homeland.
Throughout the presentations I found different things I agreed with in every single option. If we would use some ideas of each, I believe the combination could become our key solution to stopping terrorism. We should stop targeted killings because they are unnecessary and violent. I believe though, that we should not use military retaliation. So far, it has not done good so we should try something different.
hey im from 3rd period.
i strongly agree with Adriana (sorry if i spelled your name wrong)
i think that finding diplomatic solutions for the war of terror is an excelent idea because we will lose less live for everyone including other nations because like one of the cartoons that mr. V showed us "we are not the only ones in the world and we should not just care how many americans have died we should care abought how many innocent people we have killed in our reclas attacks trying to kill terrorists on the spot without even caring if there are innocent people there."
Just to give you an idea of my perspective of this.
immagine, you are living in iraq its a normal day your going out to get water and suddenly everything you ever had everyone you ever loved is gone all because of abought 5 people that just happened to be "SUSPECTED" terrorists in your village and it was the USA's fault that this happened because they chose to kill innocent people to try to kill 5 or 6 out of the thousands of "SUSPECTED" terrorists.Then after all that they have done they expect you to help them finnish the war.
when you think about it from that perspective wouldent you be mad at the US.
Hi im from 2nd period,
I agree with all of you. I also agree with the people who said we should use a mixture of all the options because they all can help decrease terrorism. I also strongly agree with Adrianna.
I strongly agree with Rachel. Violence results in more wars. We should go a peaceful and smarter route to defeat terrorism.
~Anna McDee~ Triples~
based on the unit of terrorism and everything i've learned, i beleive that the united states shoukd take action using the UN. because if we take individul action and we go to far or we bomb somebody because of anger we will be the laughing stock of terrorists all over the world. when and if the united states take action threw the UN, we sould be the leaders of the organization. so i beleive that the policy should be that terrorist organizations be executed by the UN and not threw the US, but if the terrorist organizations refuse to shut down the UN should have the authoity to go agaist interntional law.
I am in Mr Veliz's 4th period.
hey base on the readings and my option 1, i think that my option is right to plan an attack on terrist use what ever to atttack them such as target killing it may be a threat to the citizens over in the country but i mean we don't want to spend all of are trops on them but we are trying to hit them hard so they will lose confidents in there sevels. americans are always trying to makeing there weapons a safer and beter use, so soon traget attacks will be very effected to use and the people in the country, being in that country with those kind of people would be scarry becuase of the fact that anyone, time, and any place they could attack. with the other opions they talk about live them there to help them sevels but if we do that what do you think the are going to want...revenge for leaving them to dye sortive like so they just might join alquata and then they will have any army. so we sould stay help but not do to much.
i agree with you katey i like what you said at then end of your last comment.
Rachel- I understand that protecting our homeland is important and we shouldn't be constantly helping other countries, but what happens when all the cpuntries team up on us. When we have no "friends" to help fight back with us.
I think we should not be violent and just talk to them. We should say that we are a free nation and we should try and be a free planet. If any of you know Mork and Mindy, Natalie and Mr. V I'm mostly speaking to you, but everyone is on Ork and everyone is an Orkan. We are one planet but we have divided ourselves. Why do we need violence. I know that Mork and Mindy is fiction, but we are a seppart planet, they are at peace with themselves and eachother, but we... we are fighting our brothers, even if in the long run. We must not kill, we should just choose peace, liberty and freedom. Why do we fight our selves, why don't we just forget names such as Chinease, or Japaneese why dont we call our selves not different names but one, one that means all. Think about that.
Based on what I have learned so far i think that we have two options when it comes to fighting terroism. Option number one: An epic fight...TO THE DEATH. Option number two we ATTEMPT to use diplomacy and risk a reboot or possible end of the war.
I agree with everyone because I think we should stay out of the fight on terrorism but I also think that we should go in every now and then to help out.I think we should stay out because if we stay out of the war then we will be able to make sure nothing happens to our country and less soldiers will die because they are fighting in wars. Although, I think we should still go fight just not all the time. I think we should just go in there every now and then to make sure terrorists dont win.
sry i havent been on yet my internet was messed up......but now i think we should keep using the drones so we can have more soldiers home to protect us but also we should try not to have as many drone attacks considiring that civilians are killed witgh them too.
i agree with ryan.
i strongly aggree with Anna. If we have less wars we would use less soldiers and have a more peaceful enviroment. Maybe a safe way of defeating terrorism could be drone attacks like we learned about in the responding to terrorism sheets instaed of attacking face to face and it would protect soldiers from tons of injuries.
Ok so defending the homeland means that instead of sending all those troops over to the middle east keep them in America, to me I feel it's just a big waste of tax payers money. I see no reason to send hundreds of troops over to the middle east to fight in a war that's been lasting over 10 years. If we haven't won by now, or they haven't surrendered I believe the war will just keep going until someone runs out of troops, supporters, people to fight, and money.
I agree with group three. They made a good point that we are spending so much money on the wars, that we aren't using as much to protect things occurring in America other than wars. In the cold war America spent millions of dollars on weapons, and not once did they use them. It was all over money, and with that money we could have saved, could have helped us with other things. I also agree with Eden, all ideas had their pros and cons, and if we took the pros of the situations, we would be able to make a difference with Terrorism. Also Caston has a point, what about when we need other countries help? If we weren't there to help them, why would they be there to help us?
I agree with Caston when she said that we shouldn't keep helping other counties out. Although her reason was great i also have to add what happens when a big country lik Russia or China attacks us? We don't have as much defense because out troops would be in all the other countries, doing what people call "helping them out". I say it's just a waste of time.
Darrell, you make a good point. That would not be good if a strong country like Russia were to attack the U.S. and most of our soldiers were fighting overseas. Then who would protect our country?
I agree with Adranna. I believe that we should use diplomacy to stop terrorism. This is because, I think that we shouldn't kill innocent Iranians or Afghanis. If we were to kill anyone it should be worth it like Osama Bin Laden. We killed him to stop his ruling. If there is a problem we should first try to consult, or persuade the terrorists. In many Hostage holdings we have convienced the terrorists to free the hostages. Some time around the 1980 Summer Olympic Boyoctts there was a Hostage holding, where i believe around some 52 hostages were taken, in Iran for 444 days. This was held by Islamic terrorists.The president was Jimmy Carter, he kept trying to rescue the hostages but he failed. The hostages were released because before the presidents election one of the candidates secretly met the Iranian officials. This was to release the hostages, but not until the election was over. Reagan (the other candidate) won the election, mostly because of the failure of Carter to bring the hostages home. Once Reagn's win the hostages were released.
Darrell! yess, we could have some soldiers in both places
I also agree with Caston and Darrell. We should have soldiers in both places, to protect our homeland and fight the terroeist.
terrorist
Hi it's Matt from 5th period, I think everyone has made a good point and that in most cases military violence hasn't worked, however there's times when military use is necessary.
Post a Comment