Discussion on week-1-research-and-journal
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Shirley H
Jun 17, 2009, 4:48:36 PM6/17/09
to English 101 summer 09
Bacevich, A. 2009, February 23. Afghanistan Surge is Not Worth the
Cost in Blood and Treasure. U.S. News and World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/23/afghanistan-surge-is-not-worth-the-cost-in-blood-and-treasure.html?PageNr=2
1.One point I like about this article is that Bacevich presents the
summary of the Long War to date, and points out that one of the
important things lost in any clear sense of purpose. He writes of how
US military forces have been volleyed into Afghanistan, then into
Iraq, and now back into Afghanistan, and yet there is not clear
resolution to be gained from these actions. The Long War has cost the
lives of so many soldiers and civilians, along with ever-increasing
enormous deficits, yet with no end in sight, it leaves us as Americans
asking “Why?”
2.One point that I disagree with is Bacevich's view that if Obama
chooses to persist in the war with Afghanistan, that it will soon
become Obama's war, and the consequences of which will be on his
head. While there is no clear cut path of resolution for this war, it
was not a war that was single-handedly of Obama's making, and
certainly not a war that we can remove all the troops from then seek
to turn a blind eye in pretense that the past 7 years did not happen.
3.One point I would like to research more information about is what
Bacevich would consider as the appropriate exit strategy for this war.
While he has given his assessment of the futility of this war, and
criticizes Obama's intents of furthering this war, he does not,
however, in this article, give a plan of what he believes to be the
best resolution of this multi-faceted problem.
Cost in Blood and Treasure. U.S. News and World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/23/afghanistan-surge-is-not-worth-the-cost-in-blood-and-treasure.html?PageNr=2
1.One point I like about this article is that Bacevich presents the
summary of the Long War to date, and points out that one of the
important things lost in any clear sense of purpose. He writes of how
US military forces have been volleyed into Afghanistan, then into
Iraq, and now back into Afghanistan, and yet there is not clear
resolution to be gained from these actions. The Long War has cost the
lives of so many soldiers and civilians, along with ever-increasing
enormous deficits, yet with no end in sight, it leaves us as Americans
asking “Why?”
2.One point that I disagree with is Bacevich's view that if Obama
chooses to persist in the war with Afghanistan, that it will soon
become Obama's war, and the consequences of which will be on his
head. While there is no clear cut path of resolution for this war, it
was not a war that was single-handedly of Obama's making, and
certainly not a war that we can remove all the troops from then seek
to turn a blind eye in pretense that the past 7 years did not happen.
3.One point I would like to research more information about is what
Bacevich would consider as the appropriate exit strategy for this war.
While he has given his assessment of the futility of this war, and
criticizes Obama's intents of furthering this war, he does not,
however, in this article, give a plan of what he believes to be the
best resolution of this multi-faceted problem.
Message has been deleted
Janny R
Jun 17, 2009, 5:40:55 PM6/17/09
to English 101 summer 09
A) I agreed more than disagreed with Bacevich’s political views. One
point that I agreed fully with Bacevich was the idea that both
Democrats and Republicans have some sort of responsibility for the War
on Iraq. The idea of just blaming Bush for the war is not fully
correct because this war has being developing for so time now with
world and power issues all around the country. I do believe that Bush
was the one who opened the gates for the war to begin but the
political issues were there when he went into office he just made them
bigger and cost us Americans more money.
B) The only thing that I disagreed with Bacevich was he said that once
9/11 had happened we the American people did what Bush told us to do
which was go shopping and keep on living our normal lives like we had
for the past ten years. He said that most Americans did not question
Bush and left him to do what he wished without being looked after. I
think that the reason why Americans did not question Bush after 9/11
was because he was President the most knowledgeable and powerful
person in our country, oh so we though at the time. I think that once
9/11 happened Americans went into shock and did not know what to think
about the situation. I do agree that we should have never allowed Bush
to take us into Iraq but again he was the President at the time and it
was his powerful word against ours the people. In my point of view the
reason why Americans followed the orders of not changing our life
styles about 9/11 was simple because we trusted in of President. We
believed that as Chief leader of our Country he was going to take the
right measures to do what was right for our country.
C) This interview was giving before Obama had become President so one
thing that Bacevich munched was the fact that when both Obama and
McCine were running up for President both were in two different
political parties but yet both voted for the same funding to support
the War on Iraq. Now that Obama has become President his promise of
get us out of Iraq as not yet become true. When Obama was running up
for President he was always on opposites sides than McCain on the War
but yet both were both think about funding for it the same way ,where
it was good or bad for the American people. The fact is that both
candidates were planning to fund the war which in my opinion needs to
stop. This information questions my personal views on both man and now
that Obama is President I would like to get more informed on his
present views on the war and the timeline of it.
On Jun 17, 2:48 pm, Shirley H <mommamon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bacevich, A. 2009, February 23. Afghanistan Surge is Not Worth the
> Cost in Blood and Treasure. U.S. News and World Report.http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/23/afghanistan-surge-i...
point that I agreed fully with Bacevich was the idea that both
Democrats and Republicans have some sort of responsibility for the War
on Iraq. The idea of just blaming Bush for the war is not fully
correct because this war has being developing for so time now with
world and power issues all around the country. I do believe that Bush
was the one who opened the gates for the war to begin but the
political issues were there when he went into office he just made them
bigger and cost us Americans more money.
B) The only thing that I disagreed with Bacevich was he said that once
9/11 had happened we the American people did what Bush told us to do
which was go shopping and keep on living our normal lives like we had
for the past ten years. He said that most Americans did not question
Bush and left him to do what he wished without being looked after. I
think that the reason why Americans did not question Bush after 9/11
was because he was President the most knowledgeable and powerful
person in our country, oh so we though at the time. I think that once
9/11 happened Americans went into shock and did not know what to think
about the situation. I do agree that we should have never allowed Bush
to take us into Iraq but again he was the President at the time and it
was his powerful word against ours the people. In my point of view the
reason why Americans followed the orders of not changing our life
styles about 9/11 was simple because we trusted in of President. We
believed that as Chief leader of our Country he was going to take the
right measures to do what was right for our country.
C) This interview was giving before Obama had become President so one
thing that Bacevich munched was the fact that when both Obama and
McCine were running up for President both were in two different
political parties but yet both voted for the same funding to support
the War on Iraq. Now that Obama has become President his promise of
get us out of Iraq as not yet become true. When Obama was running up
for President he was always on opposites sides than McCain on the War
but yet both were both think about funding for it the same way ,where
it was good or bad for the American people. The fact is that both
candidates were planning to fund the war which in my opinion needs to
stop. This information questions my personal views on both man and now
that Obama is President I would like to get more informed on his
present views on the war and the timeline of it.
On Jun 17, 2:48 pm, Shirley H <mommamon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bacevich, A. 2009, February 23. Afghanistan Surge is Not Worth the
Audrey S.
Jun 17, 2009, 5:43:38 PM6/17/09
to English 101 summer 09
Journal / Research
Week 1: June 15 – June 19 2009
Bacevich, A. 2008, March 24. The Right Choice? The conservative case
for Barack Obama, The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/24/0002/
a) One point I like about the article is how Bacevich explains how
voting for Barack Obama could help conservatives regain their values.
He lists some common beliefs among conservatives and then proceeds to
talk about how far their group is from their own standards. Bacevich
suggests that voting for McCain will only extend the war, which
Bacevich feels is unnecessary. He states that voting for Obama
“represents a sliver of hope” to conservatives based solely on Obama’s
promise to end the war.
b) One point I did not like in the article is how Bacevich said he did
not believe Obama’s speeches would affect the culture. He wrote, “The
next generation will continue to take its cues from Hollywood rather
than from the Oval Office.” If he can’t put his faith in this
generation to make changes, then what is the point of him writing his
political philosophies and opinions?
c) There are a few things I’d like to research after reading this
article. I’ve only recently begun to be a little more politically
minded and I would like to learn more about the ideologies of the
various political parties. I would also like to learn more of the
history of American politics. I’m sure that I’ll find out more about
the latter in his book The Limits of Power, as some of his ideas in
this article were expressed and elaborated on in the introduction of
the book.
Week 1: June 15 – June 19 2009
Bacevich, A. 2008, March 24. The Right Choice? The conservative case
for Barack Obama, The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/24/0002/
a) One point I like about the article is how Bacevich explains how
voting for Barack Obama could help conservatives regain their values.
He lists some common beliefs among conservatives and then proceeds to
talk about how far their group is from their own standards. Bacevich
suggests that voting for McCain will only extend the war, which
Bacevich feels is unnecessary. He states that voting for Obama
“represents a sliver of hope” to conservatives based solely on Obama’s
promise to end the war.
b) One point I did not like in the article is how Bacevich said he did
not believe Obama’s speeches would affect the culture. He wrote, “The
next generation will continue to take its cues from Hollywood rather
than from the Oval Office.” If he can’t put his faith in this
generation to make changes, then what is the point of him writing his
political philosophies and opinions?
c) There are a few things I’d like to research after reading this
article. I’ve only recently begun to be a little more politically
minded and I would like to learn more about the ideologies of the
various political parties. I would also like to learn more of the
history of American politics. I’m sure that I’ll find out more about
the latter in his book The Limits of Power, as some of his ideas in
this article were expressed and elaborated on in the introduction of
the book.
Audrey S.
Jun 17, 2009, 6:01:28 PM6/17/09
to English 101 summer 09
Re: Shirley H
Bacevich, A. 2009, February 23. Afghanistan Surge is Not Worth the
Cost in Blood and Treasure. U.S. News and World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/23/afghanistan-surge-is-not-worth-the-cost-in-blood-and-treasure.html?PageNr=2
I love how the Bacevich article I posted contrasts with the Bacevich
article you posted. In the one I wrote about, Bacevich says it would
be better for conservatives to elect Obama rather than Mcain. He says,
"...electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war." Now, a
year later, Bacevich writes (in your reviewed article), "...if Obama's
supporters read his win as a repudiation of Bush's Iraq policies, the
election's outcome had a second effect, paradoxically serving to
ensure the Long War's continuation."
Bacevich, A. 2009, February 23. Afghanistan Surge is Not Worth the
Cost in Blood and Treasure. U.S. News and World Report.
I love how the Bacevich article I posted contrasts with the Bacevich
article you posted. In the one I wrote about, Bacevich says it would
be better for conservatives to elect Obama rather than Mcain. He says,
"...electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war." Now, a
year later, Bacevich writes (in your reviewed article), "...if Obama's
supporters read his win as a repudiation of Bush's Iraq policies, the
election's outcome had a second effect, paradoxically serving to
ensure the Long War's continuation."
oc
Jun 17, 2009, 11:10:25 PM6/17/09
to English 101 summer 09
Rosie
View profile
More options Jun 17, 5:16 pm
JOURNAL POST - WEEK 1
Tomdispatch interview: Bacevich, the Arrogance of American Power.
(Part 2)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/85882/tomdispatch_interview_bacevich_...
This article is mainly about Bacevich’s book “The New American
Militarism”
A. I agree with what Bacevich says about the Iraq War. I think that
it’s unnecessary too. Bacevich says that it’s “unjustifiable and
reckless.” That he sees “American power as the problem, not the
solution.” I agree with this particular statement too, I think that
in
this case the American power has created more of a problem than a
solution. We can try to show, teach or educate foreigners how to run
things in their country, but it’s going to take more then that to
make
an impact in their tradition or custom of doing things and their way
of thinking. It’s not sufficient to think, that because we
(Americans) got all this power, we can just go in a country and
rearrange everything.
B. I disagree on what he says about the importance that politics are
to us the people and the things that we can discuss or argue about.
That “our politics are not really meaningful. I think that lately we
have seen an increase on younger people’s interest about political
affairs and news. The past election was proof of that. There were
so
many young people that voted and took place in political rally’s, for
whichever the candidate. I think because of the economy situation,
more youngsters are being aware to what is going on with the
politicians and their actions. Bottom-line their actions and
decision
affect us all, young and old.
C. I would like to find out more about the Vietnam War and why does
Bacevich thinks that we (the soldiers) got “screwed” by the media,
politicians and the American people. He went to Vietnam and now, after
coming out of the military he sees the war in a different
perspective. He sees it as a unnecessary,
misguided mistake that should never had happen.
oc
Jun 17, 2009, 11:22:21 PM6/17/09
to English 101 summer 09
agree or disagree?
Rosie
View profile
More options Jun 17, 2:06 pm
Ok, let me know if you agree or disagree with Rich Tucker’s statement
where he says that “gas prices are driven by the law of supply and
demand.” When he refers to the global warming problem Bacevich
presents.
I agree up to a point. I know how the law of supply and demand
works. But now a day we are seeing how gas prices are going up by
the
day. As a matter of fact, according to New York Times, “Retail gas
prices climbed for the 50th straight day Wednesday, and crude prices
that had slumped all week bounced back.”
I think that gas and oil prices are going up mostly because of greed
and market speculator wanting more money in their own pockets. Most
of us are opting to stay local for summer vacation, if we can afford
any this year! Because of the recession, a lot of us are being
conscious of how we spend our time and money, while driving around
and
most of all automobile companies are going “belly up” because people
are not buying cars. Therefore low demand on gasoline, right? So
why
are gas prices creeping up?
Rosie
View profile
More options Jun 17, 2:12 pm
oh here's the link where I got my info about gas and oil prices.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009145691_a...
thanks.
Rosie
View profile
More options Jun 17, 2:06 pm
Ok, let me know if you agree or disagree with Rich Tucker’s statement
where he says that “gas prices are driven by the law of supply and
demand.” When he refers to the global warming problem Bacevich
presents.
I agree up to a point. I know how the law of supply and demand
works. But now a day we are seeing how gas prices are going up by
the
day. As a matter of fact, according to New York Times, “Retail gas
prices climbed for the 50th straight day Wednesday, and crude prices
that had slumped all week bounced back.”
I think that gas and oil prices are going up mostly because of greed
and market speculator wanting more money in their own pockets. Most
of us are opting to stay local for summer vacation, if we can afford
any this year! Because of the recession, a lot of us are being
conscious of how we spend our time and money, while driving around
and
most of all automobile companies are going “belly up” because people
are not buying cars. Therefore low demand on gasoline, right? So
why
are gas prices creeping up?
Rosie
View profile
More options Jun 17, 2:12 pm
oh here's the link where I got my info about gas and oil prices.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009145691_a...
thanks.
KunHye S
Jun 19, 2009, 2:40:36 PM6/19/09
to English 101 summer 09
a) The part I agreed with Bacevich on this article was pointing out
the failure in setting up a wrong strategy. Finding the solution in
military force was an unwise decision. Washington did misunderstand
the challenges facing Afghanistan and was mistaken in looking after
its own interests. The war has been continuous for almost 8 years
without any success. Bacevich mentioned that American's real political
objective was to disable terrorist groups from using the country to
attack the Western countries. Has this goal been met? No. The current
policy of applying militia put the goal even far way from achievement.
There were still many or even more terrorist attacks on the Western
world. Washington surely need to find a wise solution to end this war
for its own sake.
b) I was slightly confused when he said that the problem could be
settled only through politics. He already made a point that Afghans
did not like outsiders interfering their governance. Is it, then, a
good alternative to contact the warlords and the tribal chiefs? It was
not clear to me what the difference was.
c) The article stated that Pakistan carried much greater potential
harm to U.S. I want to know the reason behind this claim. I also want
to research on Reinhold Niebuhr. I would like to know what things he
insisted influenced Bacevich.
Bacevich, A. 2008, Nov. 28. The Things We Need to Do Now. Newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/171254
the failure in setting up a wrong strategy. Finding the solution in
military force was an unwise decision. Washington did misunderstand
the challenges facing Afghanistan and was mistaken in looking after
its own interests. The war has been continuous for almost 8 years
without any success. Bacevich mentioned that American's real political
objective was to disable terrorist groups from using the country to
attack the Western countries. Has this goal been met? No. The current
policy of applying militia put the goal even far way from achievement.
There were still many or even more terrorist attacks on the Western
world. Washington surely need to find a wise solution to end this war
for its own sake.
b) I was slightly confused when he said that the problem could be
settled only through politics. He already made a point that Afghans
did not like outsiders interfering their governance. Is it, then, a
good alternative to contact the warlords and the tribal chiefs? It was
not clear to me what the difference was.
c) The article stated that Pakistan carried much greater potential
harm to U.S. I want to know the reason behind this claim. I also want
to research on Reinhold Niebuhr. I would like to know what things he
insisted influenced Bacevich.
Bacevich, A. 2008, Nov. 28. The Things We Need to Do Now. Newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/171254
Rosie
Jun 19, 2009, 3:20:15 PM6/19/09
to English 101 summer 09
KH... I think that interfering and contacting are two different
things. If US contacts the warlords to negotiate is different than to
go in and try to overrule them. The reactions would be different. We
(America) already tried the going in and trying to "disable terrorist
groups" and have not accomplish anything with that approach. After 8
years of war and many deaths, it's time to try something different,
maybe something totally radical or rational
things. If US contacts the warlords to negotiate is different than to
go in and try to overrule them. The reactions would be different. We
(America) already tried the going in and trying to "disable terrorist
groups" and have not accomplish anything with that approach. After 8
years of war and many deaths, it's time to try something different,
maybe something totally radical or rational
oc
Jun 19, 2009, 8:08:32 PM6/19/09
to English 101 summer 09
tejasvi
Jun 17, 11:14 pm
Journal/Research
Week 1: June 15-June19
Bacevich, A 2008, November 29. The Things We Need To Know.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/171254?tid=relatedcl
1. Being from the Indian-Subcontinent, I agree with Bacevich that
American policies in Afghanistan are perilous. The policies adopted
by
the previous and the present administration in Afghanistan are
leading
the U.S. and its allies nowhere. Washington and other capitals of
NATO
have wrongly calculated the western interest in Afghanistan. The
subcontinental history shows that this region has created lots of
uprisings in the past. The present problem in Afghanistan can only be
solved by negotiating with local militia and warlords as Afghanistan
is a well knit society. It has been rightly pointed out by Bacevich
that the problem cannot be solved by military actions but by the
political consensus/communucative/compassionate policies.
2. I think the author has been mistaken in stating that Afghanistan
produces nothing that the world wants but opium. I want to mention
that Aghanistan was famous for its art and crafts.It is now
worthwhile
to mention here that the University of Kandhar gave world a new style
of sculptual depicting Buddhain Bactrian style. Afghanistan produces
best variety of pommegranate and dry fruits. Afghans are very sturdy,
hard working and proud people. That is why they resent the influence
of outsiders.
3. However, being 16 years old I would like to research a little more
into the Afghan-U.S. problems as it started eight years ago.
Yury
Jun 18, 7:58 am
What I like about this website is that it gives a clear meaning to
what Bacevich does in his life. It clearly states that some
historians
would tend to term the long peace in 1990. He said that it was given
away in retrospect. He clearly said that people needed to take
responsibility of their own actions. I do not like the part where he
said that the nation was being very stubborn. Yes! We know that the
nation is very stubborn. However, he did not stated why they were
being very stubborn. One point I like to research more is about
Bacevich’s information. I did not think that he gives many details
about himself. He just present what books he has written in the past,
but not more about his personal information.
KunHye S
Jun 19, 10:50 am
i agreed and disagreed on the same u did on this article
i agree that the military force is not the answer to achieving
America's political objective.
i also desagreed when he metioned opium production on Afgahnistan.
Bacevich was trying so hard to prove his point that he went a little
bit too far.
although he did say "almost" nothing, it sounded like he was so sure
that Afgahnistan only produced opium.
Rosie
Jun 19, 11:34 am
I'm with KH.... we all know that countries have lots to give, even
the poorest country in the worl is rich in many things. but I think
that Bacevich just wanted to make a strong point and get people's
attention to what he got to say. And by the people's reaction, he
has
accomplish that. I agree that a way of dealing with the Afghanistan
issue is more with negotiation as opposed to military power. All
parties want to have "power" so the war can continiue undefinetely
for
all we know.
Jun 17, 11:14 pm
Journal/Research
Week 1: June 15-June19
Bacevich, A 2008, November 29. The Things We Need To Know.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/171254?tid=relatedcl
1. Being from the Indian-Subcontinent, I agree with Bacevich that
American policies in Afghanistan are perilous. The policies adopted
by
the previous and the present administration in Afghanistan are
leading
the U.S. and its allies nowhere. Washington and other capitals of
NATO
have wrongly calculated the western interest in Afghanistan. The
subcontinental history shows that this region has created lots of
uprisings in the past. The present problem in Afghanistan can only be
solved by negotiating with local militia and warlords as Afghanistan
is a well knit society. It has been rightly pointed out by Bacevich
that the problem cannot be solved by military actions but by the
political consensus/communucative/compassionate policies.
2. I think the author has been mistaken in stating that Afghanistan
produces nothing that the world wants but opium. I want to mention
that Aghanistan was famous for its art and crafts.It is now
worthwhile
to mention here that the University of Kandhar gave world a new style
of sculptual depicting Buddhain Bactrian style. Afghanistan produces
best variety of pommegranate and dry fruits. Afghans are very sturdy,
hard working and proud people. That is why they resent the influence
of outsiders.
3. However, being 16 years old I would like to research a little more
into the Afghan-U.S. problems as it started eight years ago.
Yury
Jun 18, 7:58 am
What I like about this website is that it gives a clear meaning to
what Bacevich does in his life. It clearly states that some
historians
would tend to term the long peace in 1990. He said that it was given
away in retrospect. He clearly said that people needed to take
responsibility of their own actions. I do not like the part where he
said that the nation was being very stubborn. Yes! We know that the
nation is very stubborn. However, he did not stated why they were
being very stubborn. One point I like to research more is about
Bacevich’s information. I did not think that he gives many details
about himself. He just present what books he has written in the past,
but not more about his personal information.
KunHye S
Jun 19, 10:50 am
i agreed and disagreed on the same u did on this article
i agree that the military force is not the answer to achieving
America's political objective.
i also desagreed when he metioned opium production on Afgahnistan.
Bacevich was trying so hard to prove his point that he went a little
bit too far.
although he did say "almost" nothing, it sounded like he was so sure
that Afgahnistan only produced opium.
Rosie
Jun 19, 11:34 am
I'm with KH.... we all know that countries have lots to give, even
the poorest country in the worl is rich in many things. but I think
that Bacevich just wanted to make a strong point and get people's
attention to what he got to say. And by the people's reaction, he
has
accomplish that. I agree that a way of dealing with the Afghanistan
issue is more with negotiation as opposed to military power. All
parties want to have "power" so the war can continiue undefinetely
for
all we know.
oc
Jun 19, 2009, 8:12:29 PM6/19/09
to English 101 summer 09
Ru
Jun 18, 2:16 pm
JOURNAL POST WEEK 1
Synopsis fromm: New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by
War
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/New-American-Militarism/Andrew-J-Bac...
This article is about the book and his evaluation of the U.S.
A.) The point I liked coming from Bacevich was his comment on the
consequences of war; bacevich warns of a dangerous dual obsession
that
has taken hold of Americans, conservatives, and liberals alike. It is
a marriage of militarism and utopian ideology—of unprecedented
military might wed to a blind faith in the universality of American
values. This mindset, the author warns, invites endless war and the
ever-deepening militarization of U.S. policy. It promises not to
perfect but to pervert American ideals and to accelerate the
hollowing
out of American democracy. As it alienates others, it will leave the
United States increasingly isolated. It will end in bankruptcy, moral
as well as economic, and in abject failure. His ability to speak
truth
before it is visualized by society gives the lindividual an
oppurtunity and willingness try something different. Perhaps the
suggetion he was inquired on in the interview with Bill Moyer; "Get
thine own house in Order" is a great motivator for all americans
during the threat oppression.
B.) The point I didn't agrre with is when he was interviewed by Bill
Moyer, Asked what accomplishments he felt couldn't be fulfilled by
neither Mccain or Obama, upcoming Presidents (at the time). His
reply,
"What neither of these candidates will be able to, I think,
accomplish
is to persuade us to look ourselves in the mirror, to see the
direction in which we are headed. And from my point of view, it's a
direction towards ever greater debt and dependency." For the most
part
Obama has opened alot eyes as far as society and the US as a whole.
His entering as president literally tells every man, woman, and child
that all things are possible if you work towards it and put your mind
to it. In time obama will touch many lives with the desire to search
their own hearts and share so freely what they have found.
C) Because I'm not at all interested in politics I'd like to do
research on the history of the united states. In hopes that I will
better understand this process of war, economy, and culture.
Rosie
Jun 19, 11:50 am
RU, you got a point here about President Obama opening a lot of eyes
to see deep within their own community and people do seem to be more
interested in what’s going around them. I think that after the 9/11
situation a lot of people were blinded by anger and despair that they
just wanted “someone” to pay and therefore agree to a war. But now
that a lot of time has passed by and we see no results with war, we
will “look ourselves in the mirror” and ask if we want for things to
continue the way they are or if we can change things around for a
better tomorrow. RM
Jun 18, 2:16 pm
JOURNAL POST WEEK 1
Synopsis fromm: New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by
War
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/New-American-Militarism/Andrew-J-Bac...
This article is about the book and his evaluation of the U.S.
A.) The point I liked coming from Bacevich was his comment on the
consequences of war; bacevich warns of a dangerous dual obsession
that
has taken hold of Americans, conservatives, and liberals alike. It is
a marriage of militarism and utopian ideology—of unprecedented
military might wed to a blind faith in the universality of American
values. This mindset, the author warns, invites endless war and the
ever-deepening militarization of U.S. policy. It promises not to
perfect but to pervert American ideals and to accelerate the
hollowing
out of American democracy. As it alienates others, it will leave the
United States increasingly isolated. It will end in bankruptcy, moral
as well as economic, and in abject failure. His ability to speak
truth
before it is visualized by society gives the lindividual an
oppurtunity and willingness try something different. Perhaps the
suggetion he was inquired on in the interview with Bill Moyer; "Get
thine own house in Order" is a great motivator for all americans
during the threat oppression.
B.) The point I didn't agrre with is when he was interviewed by Bill
Moyer, Asked what accomplishments he felt couldn't be fulfilled by
neither Mccain or Obama, upcoming Presidents (at the time). His
reply,
"What neither of these candidates will be able to, I think,
accomplish
is to persuade us to look ourselves in the mirror, to see the
direction in which we are headed. And from my point of view, it's a
direction towards ever greater debt and dependency." For the most
part
Obama has opened alot eyes as far as society and the US as a whole.
His entering as president literally tells every man, woman, and child
that all things are possible if you work towards it and put your mind
to it. In time obama will touch many lives with the desire to search
their own hearts and share so freely what they have found.
C) Because I'm not at all interested in politics I'd like to do
research on the history of the united states. In hopes that I will
better understand this process of war, economy, and culture.
Rosie
Jun 19, 11:50 am
RU, you got a point here about President Obama opening a lot of eyes
to see deep within their own community and people do seem to be more
interested in what’s going around them. I think that after the 9/11
situation a lot of people were blinded by anger and despair that they
just wanted “someone” to pay and therefore agree to a war. But now
that a lot of time has passed by and we see no results with war, we
will “look ourselves in the mirror” and ask if we want for things to
continue the way they are or if we can change things around for a
better tomorrow. RM
IsaiasxD
Jun 19, 2009, 8:14:21 PM6/19/09
to English 101 summer 09
Journal/Research
Week 1: June 15 - June 19
Rosenberg, A. 2008, August 19.
Andrew Bacevich: Hard Truths About America Gone Astray
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/95655/andrew_bacevich:_hard_truths_about_america_gone_as
tray/
A.) I really like his point of view on the war in Iraq in this
interview with Bill Moyers.
He blames the national security for not planning intelligently for the
iraq war. He also
blames the national security for the reason that they couldn't be able
to identify the 9/11
conspiracy. And also, having a moment to think in particular if the
war was even
necessary."The presidency has been less effective. The system is
broken" Very strong words
from Bacevich, and I agree with his point of view of how the
government is awful and
unpreppared. The war in Iraq has burned holes in America's pockets.
And what they've done
was continue a senseless war that has continued for almost a decade.
B.) In the interview with Bill Moyers, there was a statement that I
disagreed about.
Bacevich stated "The fundamental problem facing the country will
remain stubbornly in place
no matter who is elected in November." His theory about the economic
crisis is that neither
both Obama or McCain are the candidates to get us out of this misery.
As Bacevich said "What
theme about this idea
is we can't rely on anyone. This mammoth issue is too enormous for
bacevich to believe
either one of the candidates will promplty get us out of debt.
C.) I began my interest in politics ever since I saw the documentary
"Loose Change 9/11" and
looking at a few movies such as: Frost Nixon. I would like to know why
the government keeps
evidence or news from the American people. Was the government really
behind the 9/11
attacks? Did anyone from the bush administration had anything to do
with this. It's a
strange era and questions are starting to pick up.
Week 1: June 15 - June 19
Rosenberg, A. 2008, August 19.
Andrew Bacevich: Hard Truths About America Gone Astray
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/95655/andrew_bacevich:_hard_truths_about_america_gone_as
tray/
A.) I really like his point of view on the war in Iraq in this
interview with Bill Moyers.
He blames the national security for not planning intelligently for the
iraq war. He also
blames the national security for the reason that they couldn't be able
to identify the 9/11
conspiracy. And also, having a moment to think in particular if the
war was even
necessary."The presidency has been less effective. The system is
broken" Very strong words
from Bacevich, and I agree with his point of view of how the
government is awful and
unpreppared. The war in Iraq has burned holes in America's pockets.
And what they've done
was continue a senseless war that has continued for almost a decade.
B.) In the interview with Bill Moyers, there was a statement that I
disagreed about.
Bacevich stated "The fundamental problem facing the country will
remain stubbornly in place
no matter who is elected in November." His theory about the economic
crisis is that neither
both Obama or McCain are the candidates to get us out of this misery.
As Bacevich said "What
neither of these candidates will be able to, I think, accomplish is to
persuade us to look
ourselves in the mirror, to see the direction in which we are headed.
And from my point of
view, it's a direction towards ever greater debt and dependency". The
persuade us to look
ourselves in the mirror, to see the direction in which we are headed.
And from my point of
theme about this idea
is we can't rely on anyone. This mammoth issue is too enormous for
bacevich to believe
either one of the candidates will promplty get us out of debt.
C.) I began my interest in politics ever since I saw the documentary
"Loose Change 9/11" and
looking at a few movies such as: Frost Nixon. I would like to know why
the government keeps
evidence or news from the American people. Was the government really
behind the 9/11
attacks? Did anyone from the bush administration had anything to do
with this. It's a
strange era and questions are starting to pick up.
IsaiasxD
Jun 19, 2009, 8:16:14 PM6/19/09
to English 101 summer 09
that was not my fault.
Message has been deleted
SUN Y
Jun 20, 2009, 12:53:44 AM6/20/09
to English 101 summer 09
I also agree Bacevich's opinion is the dangerous dual obsession. That
is why he keeps saying
that maintaining the world's most powerful military establishment
imposed a negligible burden on the average citizen.
On 6월19일, 오후5시12분, oc <eng101l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ru
> Jun 18, 2:16 pm
> JOURNAL POST WEEK 1
> Synopsis fromm: New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by
> Warhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/New-American-Militarism/Andrew-J-Bac...
is why he keeps saying
that maintaining the world's most powerful military establishment
imposed a negligible burden on the average citizen.
On 6월19일, 오후5시12분, oc <eng101l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ru
> Jun 18, 2:16 pm
> JOURNAL POST WEEK 1
> Synopsis fromm: New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by
> This article is about the book and his evaluation of the U.S.
> A.) The point I liked coming from Bacevich was his comment on the
> consequences of war; bacevich warns of a dangerous dual obsession
> that
> has taken hold of Americans, conservatives, and liberals alike. It is
> a marriage of militarism and utopian ideology--of unprecedented
> A.) The point I liked coming from Bacevich was his comment on the
> consequences of war; bacevich warns of a dangerous dual obsession
> that
> has taken hold of Americans, conservatives, and liberals alike. It is
SUN Y
Jun 20, 2009, 12:55:32 AM6/20/09
to English 101 summer 09
week-1-research-and-journal
Bacevich, A. 2007, January 26. The failure of an all-volunteer
military .http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/
articles/2007/01/21/the_failure_...
a) One point I agree with the article is that Bacevish said, “The
defects of basic U.S. national security institutions stand exposed.
Failure to correct those defects will only invite more Iraqs —
unnecessary wars that once begun prove unwinnable.” That’s when things
started going downhill. I assure that we cannot but face a domino
effect since the economic, political, cultural, and military things
are reserved power as Bacevich mentioned at the beginning of Limits of
power, and those are in connection for sure, so it couldn’t be
considered separately. The meaningless and endless war has been
getting longer over the years, and it cost a lot. I believe we are
heavily burdened with taxation because it resulted in a considerable
loss to the exchequer. Can we expect bright side on this government?
b) One point I am in disagreement over the opinion is that the armed
services had become estranged from American society. However, the
military force should exist for the national defense until the war to
end war may end up in this world. For this reason, the government has
encouraged to enroll in military by providing incentive. And the
upsurge of applicants who are trying to enter a naval or military
academy reflects to face up to reality. We know it’s most likely due
to recession. So in my point of view, the volunteer military by the
proper compensation is a good way to contribute to the nation's
defense.
c) As a matter of fact, I never interest in politic or military
matter. So, I might be at one-sided to my opinion. Also, especially,
regarding the military thing, I have no idea whether the volunteer
military pertain several defect or not rather than conscription.
However, it’s time to take an opportunity to look at government’s
doing in the strategy for the military how to strength and to pullout
U.S. troop from a war.
Bacevich, A. 2007, January 26. The failure of an all-volunteer
military .http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/
articles/2007/01/21/the_failure_...
a) One point I agree with the article is that Bacevish said, “The
defects of basic U.S. national security institutions stand exposed.
Failure to correct those defects will only invite more Iraqs —
unnecessary wars that once begun prove unwinnable.” That’s when things
started going downhill. I assure that we cannot but face a domino
effect since the economic, political, cultural, and military things
are reserved power as Bacevich mentioned at the beginning of Limits of
power, and those are in connection for sure, so it couldn’t be
considered separately. The meaningless and endless war has been
getting longer over the years, and it cost a lot. I believe we are
heavily burdened with taxation because it resulted in a considerable
loss to the exchequer. Can we expect bright side on this government?
b) One point I am in disagreement over the opinion is that the armed
services had become estranged from American society. However, the
military force should exist for the national defense until the war to
end war may end up in this world. For this reason, the government has
encouraged to enroll in military by providing incentive. And the
upsurge of applicants who are trying to enter a naval or military
academy reflects to face up to reality. We know it’s most likely due
to recession. So in my point of view, the volunteer military by the
proper compensation is a good way to contribute to the nation's
defense.
c) As a matter of fact, I never interest in politic or military
matter. So, I might be at one-sided to my opinion. Also, especially,
regarding the military thing, I have no idea whether the volunteer
military pertain several defect or not rather than conscription.
However, it’s time to take an opportunity to look at government’s
doing in the strategy for the military how to strength and to pullout
U.S. troop from a war.
Hyung K
Jun 20, 2009, 2:18:09 AM6/20/09
to English 101 summer 09
Published on Monday, April 9, 2007 by The Los Angeles Times
'Your Iraq Plan?' Is a Pointless Question
Candidates Should Acknowledge That Bush's War is a Failure and Look
Beyond Iraq.
by Andrew J. Bacevich http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/406
A)one point I like about this article is that expanded immeasureably
with the failed concept of Bush's insane, preemptive, oil-war against
Iraq. And he indicated pointless questions about Iraque war."what is
your plan for Iraq?" To pose them is to invite dissembling. The truth
is that next to nothing can be done to salvage Iraq. It no longer lies
within the capacity of the United States to determine the outcome of
events there. and I agree that question was right on 2002 and 2003,
Although it went largely unasked and almost completely unanswered
then. But as we approach the 2008 presidential election, the tragedy
of Iraq continues to unfold. What should we fill that void for US
bereft of a coherent strategy?
B)The part that i disagree with bacevich was he asserted falsly kind
to say that Bush, "imagined that liberating Iraq might trigger a
flowering of Arab democracy. He was counting on Saddam Hussein's
ouster to jump-start a regional transformation. He expected a
forthright demonstration of U.S. military might to enhance America's
standing across the Muslim world, with friend and foe alike thereafter
deferring to Washington." That's because the real reason for invading
is still alive. The US written 'hydrocarbon law' for Iraq is pending
ratification in the Pentagon protected and therefore Pentagon bought
and Pentagon owned "Green Zone" Iraqi Parliament. Sweet deals loom for
US/UK oil giants if Iraq's oil is allowed to become privatized under
the duress of the US occupation. The only "flowering" that the Bushies
have sown with bloodshed and mayhem in Iraq will be the gushers of oil
dotting the Iraqi landscape - ( See Cheney Oil Maps on
www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml ) Blocks 1 through 9.
C)I almostly agree with Bacevich's articles about pointless questions
to candidates, but I couldn't understand some of Bacevich's ideas. One
of them, "Ritualistic allusions to freedom as the antidote to
terrorism still occasionally crop up in presidential speeches, but
rhetoric no longer translates into action. An administration that once
touted its expansive and principled approach to preventing another
9/11 has abandoned principle"
'Your Iraq Plan?' Is a Pointless Question
Candidates Should Acknowledge That Bush's War is a Failure and Look
Beyond Iraq.
by Andrew J. Bacevich http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/406
A)one point I like about this article is that expanded immeasureably
with the failed concept of Bush's insane, preemptive, oil-war against
Iraq. And he indicated pointless questions about Iraque war."what is
your plan for Iraq?" To pose them is to invite dissembling. The truth
is that next to nothing can be done to salvage Iraq. It no longer lies
within the capacity of the United States to determine the outcome of
events there. and I agree that question was right on 2002 and 2003,
Although it went largely unasked and almost completely unanswered
then. But as we approach the 2008 presidential election, the tragedy
of Iraq continues to unfold. What should we fill that void for US
bereft of a coherent strategy?
B)The part that i disagree with bacevich was he asserted falsly kind
to say that Bush, "imagined that liberating Iraq might trigger a
flowering of Arab democracy. He was counting on Saddam Hussein's
ouster to jump-start a regional transformation. He expected a
forthright demonstration of U.S. military might to enhance America's
standing across the Muslim world, with friend and foe alike thereafter
deferring to Washington." That's because the real reason for invading
is still alive. The US written 'hydrocarbon law' for Iraq is pending
ratification in the Pentagon protected and therefore Pentagon bought
and Pentagon owned "Green Zone" Iraqi Parliament. Sweet deals loom for
US/UK oil giants if Iraq's oil is allowed to become privatized under
the duress of the US occupation. The only "flowering" that the Bushies
have sown with bloodshed and mayhem in Iraq will be the gushers of oil
dotting the Iraqi landscape - ( See Cheney Oil Maps on
www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml ) Blocks 1 through 9.
C)I almostly agree with Bacevich's articles about pointless questions
to candidates, but I couldn't understand some of Bacevich's ideas. One
of them, "Ritualistic allusions to freedom as the antidote to
terrorism still occasionally crop up in presidential speeches, but
rhetoric no longer translates into action. An administration that once
touted its expansive and principled approach to preventing another
9/11 has abandoned principle"
oc
Jun 20, 2009, 11:35:14 PM6/20/09
to English 101 summer 09
Janny R
Jun 19, 9:18 pm
I agree with both of you. I know that for my own experience being
around people when 9/11 happened we all became anger and just wanted
to get back at who ever had done this to us Americans. Now that seven
years have past since 9/11 and we are seeing the effect war is having
on our country we are starting to question our reasons for being in
Iraq. This war have really not done anything for your country. The
fact is that we went to war because we wanted the master mind of
9/11
to pay for what they had done, but that has never happened ,so why
are
we still in war?
alicia roberts
Jun 19, 9:51 pm
This is the problem: Tomdispatch interview: Bacevich," the Arrogance
of American Power."
Ms. Alicia Roberts
Jun 19, 9:18 pm
I agree with both of you. I know that for my own experience being
around people when 9/11 happened we all became anger and just wanted
to get back at who ever had done this to us Americans. Now that seven
years have past since 9/11 and we are seeing the effect war is having
on our country we are starting to question our reasons for being in
Iraq. This war have really not done anything for your country. The
fact is that we went to war because we wanted the master mind of
9/11
to pay for what they had done, but that has never happened ,so why
are
we still in war?
alicia roberts
Jun 19, 9:51 pm
This is the problem: Tomdispatch interview: Bacevich," the Arrogance
of American Power."
Ms. Alicia Roberts
JL
Jun 21, 2009, 4:18:00 AM6/21/09
to English 101 summer 09
I agree with you about the 9/11.
the national security got blamed for the reason that they couldn't be
able
to identify the 9/11. But I do support the Iraq War becuse of Saddam
Hussein.
I think we are in war not just because of 9/11it is for Iraqis.
blame the terrorists for dragging out the war not Bush or our
government.
On Jun 19, 5:14 pm, IsaiasxD <isaiasistheb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Journal/Research
> Week 1: June 15 - June 19
>
> Rosenberg, A. 2008, August 19.
> Andrew Bacevich: Hard Truths About America Gone Astrayhttp://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/95655/andrew_bacevich:_hard_truth...
the national security got blamed for the reason that they couldn't be
able
to identify the 9/11. But I do support the Iraq War becuse of Saddam
Hussein.
I think we are in war not just because of 9/11it is for Iraqis.
blame the terrorists for dragging out the war not Bush or our
government.
On Jun 19, 5:14 pm, IsaiasxD <isaiasistheb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Journal/Research
> Week 1: June 15 - June 19
>
> Rosenberg, A. 2008, August 19.
AS5
Jun 22, 2009, 1:27:08 AM6/22/09
to English 101 summer 09
-One of Bacevich’s ideas was that he thought that the previous
president, George W. Bush, thinks that war is a permanent solution to
prevent future attacks from happening after 9/11. I also think that
what Bacevich is trying to say is that global war will never end and
that the United States will have to keep on fighting the terrorists.
He even thinks that news about the war is so common that he thinks
that Americans are already used to it. Also, the United States is
still fighting in a war where Americans don’t really know why they
were fighting in the first place. Even the fact that he thought that
Bush was waging war because he wanted to preserve American freedom
which one may think that isn’t the case.
-One of Bacevich’s ideas that were presented in the book was that he
thought that the American’s concept or worship of freedom was the
reason why America is in debt. He also thought that the government was
spending on things, especially on the military, was the reason why
America’s power is being easily used up or wasted. Also, he thought
that Americans aren’t doing or contributing anything to help America’s
problem about an emergency such as the war. He also thought that there
are too little troops fighting in the war even though he said that the
war was bad. He thought that the war was unnecessary but at the same
time, is making the United States of making the government not mixed
up. And that he thought that Americans should control whatever happens
in the government and other matters rather than the president or other
people in the government.
That is all I think that the book was implying for now. I hoped it
helped!
On Jun 17, 1:48 pm, Shirley H <mommamon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bacevich, A. 2009, February 23. Afghanistan Surge is Not Worth the
> Cost in Blood and Treasure. U.S. News and World Report.http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/23/afghanistan-surge-i...
president, George W. Bush, thinks that war is a permanent solution to
prevent future attacks from happening after 9/11. I also think that
what Bacevich is trying to say is that global war will never end and
that the United States will have to keep on fighting the terrorists.
He even thinks that news about the war is so common that he thinks
that Americans are already used to it. Also, the United States is
still fighting in a war where Americans don’t really know why they
were fighting in the first place. Even the fact that he thought that
Bush was waging war because he wanted to preserve American freedom
which one may think that isn’t the case.
-One of Bacevich’s ideas that were presented in the book was that he
thought that the American’s concept or worship of freedom was the
reason why America is in debt. He also thought that the government was
spending on things, especially on the military, was the reason why
America’s power is being easily used up or wasted. Also, he thought
that Americans aren’t doing or contributing anything to help America’s
problem about an emergency such as the war. He also thought that there
are too little troops fighting in the war even though he said that the
war was bad. He thought that the war was unnecessary but at the same
time, is making the United States of making the government not mixed
up. And that he thought that Americans should control whatever happens
in the government and other matters rather than the president or other
people in the government.
That is all I think that the book was implying for now. I hoped it
helped!
On Jun 17, 1:48 pm, Shirley H <mommamon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bacevich, A. 2009, February 23. Afghanistan Surge is Not Worth the
Ashinee
Jun 24, 2009, 5:44:48 PM6/24/09
to English 101 summer 09
Ashinee Reynolds
Week 1 Journal and Research
Bacevich, A. 2008, Jan 20. Surge to Nowhere. The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802873.html
a) One point I liked about Bacevichs’ article was his explanation of
Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn” rule. The “Pottery Barn” rule explains
that Iraq is owned by the United States and Iraq is irreversibly
broken. Bacevich explains that the United States continues to “invest”
money, time, and lives into Iraq although there was no set time limit
for the return of U.S troops. As a result, the United States is faced
with a massive predicament. In reality Bacevich is correct. From the
looks of things the only logical response of the United States is to
accept the fact that the war was a bad judgment call. In other words,
the U.S. failed, or the U.S. could continue the war, which will mean
more lives are likely to be lost and more money (that we can not
afford to spend) will be spent.
b) I was not to fond about the part of the article that explained the
way anti Americanism has grown and continues to grow. It reminded me
of a story a friend of mine shared with me. My friend worked at a UPS
store in a mall in St. Louis Missouri. To make a long story short she
and woman got in a confrontation and my friend asked her to leave the
store. The woman responded I’ll leave the day your country stops
bombing mine. I thought that was truly a tragic statement, because I’m
sure that anti Americanism has grown but I don’t think the cost has
been worth it. There are plenty of Americans who are genuinely
benevolent. I also think that recent actions of this country have
negatively tainted America. America is suppose to be known as this
type of super powered country, but Bacevich mentions that the war has
indeed exposed the true Limits of Power that the United States has.
His book is definitely interesting.
c) One thing that I’d like to do more research on is the stats that
were mentioned in Bacevichs’ article. If it is true that the United
States Pentagon is going through two to three billion dollars a week
to fund the war, I am furiously speechless. Considering the state of
our economy that money could be put to a greater use instead of
mindlessly funding a fraudulent war. Class mates and Professor out of
curiosity what are some of your feelings toward the war?
Karyl Drapete
Jun 24, 2009, 9:11:33 PM6/24/09
to English 101 summer 09
Karyl Drapete
Prof. O’Connell
Journal #1
One of the many concepts I became interested in is that Americans
became “a generation of profligacy that produced strategic insolvency
which created a nervous speculation about a coming economic collapse
comparable in magnitude to the Great Depression.” In other words,
America is weakening and declining financially, economically, and its
unity. I agree that we are attracted to buying “more” and we did lose
the meaning of freedom. We consume more compared back to the
generation of our forefathers, and the people that walk and talk the
brands that are man-made by Americans are eating and breathing
materialism. Bacevich writes about the whole “profligacy” concept and
makes his readers realize this so that we hopefully change our ways.
One point I completely disagreed with is that the nuclear weapons
should be abolished as “an urgent national security priority [because]
they’re unusable.” I understand that reassessing our unproductive
American lifestyle and turning our backs to overly consuming and the
unneeded materialism we feed our appetites will positively benefit our
economy that can possibly save us from our debts, but I don’t believe
we should cancel out our national security and abolish our weaponry.
First of all, what will be our defense when some lunatic leader
attacks us again? Secondly, we can’t just depend on our neighboring
countries and the countries that look upon us change for the better as
well when we do take away unusable nuclear weapons, which means that
they still have the opportunity to attack us. Abolishing nuclear
weapons won’t wholly change every American into pro-environment
supporter.
One point I really don’t understand from the website is that
“Americans came to count on an ever larger economic pie to anesthetize
the unruly and ameliorate tensions related to class, race, religion,
and ethnicity.” I would like to find out more about how we came to
become the “superpower” globally, how we’re seen from other countries,
and the connection with them.
Prof. O’Connell
Journal #1
One of the many concepts I became interested in is that Americans
became “a generation of profligacy that produced strategic insolvency
which created a nervous speculation about a coming economic collapse
comparable in magnitude to the Great Depression.” In other words,
America is weakening and declining financially, economically, and its
unity. I agree that we are attracted to buying “more” and we did lose
the meaning of freedom. We consume more compared back to the
generation of our forefathers, and the people that walk and talk the
brands that are man-made by Americans are eating and breathing
materialism. Bacevich writes about the whole “profligacy” concept and
makes his readers realize this so that we hopefully change our ways.
One point I completely disagreed with is that the nuclear weapons
should be abolished as “an urgent national security priority [because]
they’re unusable.” I understand that reassessing our unproductive
American lifestyle and turning our backs to overly consuming and the
unneeded materialism we feed our appetites will positively benefit our
economy that can possibly save us from our debts, but I don’t believe
we should cancel out our national security and abolish our weaponry.
First of all, what will be our defense when some lunatic leader
attacks us again? Secondly, we can’t just depend on our neighboring
countries and the countries that look upon us change for the better as
well when we do take away unusable nuclear weapons, which means that
they still have the opportunity to attack us. Abolishing nuclear
weapons won’t wholly change every American into pro-environment
supporter.
One point I really don’t understand from the website is that
“Americans came to count on an ever larger economic pie to anesthetize
the unruly and ameliorate tensions related to class, race, religion,
and ethnicity.” I would like to find out more about how we came to
become the “superpower” globally, how we’re seen from other countries,
and the connection with them.
tejasvi
Jun 26, 2009, 1:00:06 AM6/26/09
to English 101 summer 09
Tejasv Vashist
http://www.newsweek.com/id/193503
In his article dated 11th April 2009, Jonathan Tepperman has rightly
projected U.S. policies in one of the poorest nations in the world
i.e. Ethiopia. This has been US policy since ages when it protects,
promote the dictators though itself in its own country advocates
freedom, liberty and democracy. The Ethiopian policy of US is on the
same line as of supporting Pakistan during General Parvez Musharraf’s
rule by aiding that country with billions of dollars and military
help.
But why would we need Ethiopian support to fight Al-Qaeda in next door
Somalia, I don’t understand. For Example why US doesn’t help Indian
military to uproot and finish the terrorist camps operating in
Pakistan which create the future Taliban and Al Qaeda.
It is felt that US should stop using the carrot and stick policy as
being seen in Ethiopia. On one side it is helping the dictatorship
with aid, funds and on other gets nothing in return from one of the
poorest countries in the world except soft talks. However I would like
to know more about US policies being adopted by the new
administration.
Week 1 Journal and Research
Tepperman, J.2009. April 11. With A Friend Like This. Newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/193503
In his article dated 11th April 2009, Jonathan Tepperman has rightly
projected U.S. policies in one of the poorest nations in the world
i.e. Ethiopia. This has been US policy since ages when it protects,
promote the dictators though itself in its own country advocates
freedom, liberty and democracy. The Ethiopian policy of US is on the
same line as of supporting Pakistan during General Parvez Musharraf’s
rule by aiding that country with billions of dollars and military
help.
But why would we need Ethiopian support to fight Al-Qaeda in next door
Somalia, I don’t understand. For Example why US doesn’t help Indian
military to uproot and finish the terrorist camps operating in
Pakistan which create the future Taliban and Al Qaeda.
It is felt that US should stop using the carrot and stick policy as
being seen in Ethiopia. On one side it is helping the dictatorship
with aid, funds and on other gets nothing in return from one of the
poorest countries in the world except soft talks. However I would like
to know more about US policies being adopted by the new
administration.
tejasvi
Jun 26, 2009, 12:57:20 AM6/26/09
to English 101 summer 09
Shirley H
Aug 9, 2009, 10:44:25 PM8/9/09
to English 101 summer 09
Reply to Audrey S. Week 1 Research and Journal posts
I agree with you that our two articles both authored by Bacevich
provide an interesting contrast to each other. It also serves as a
representation of how corrupt and stubborn our government has become
that regardless of who is in office, this war will continue. As
recently seen, while Obama is compromising on his promise to remove
all troops from Iraq in a timely manner, he is also fulfilling his
campaign promise to boost support in Afghanistan, thereby committing
America in it's continuance of these wars. The “sliver of hope” that
Bacevich speaks about in your article choice, “The Right Choice? The
Conservative Case for Barack Obama,” has all but been eradicated as
Obama has no intent of truly ending the Long War.
On Jun 17, 3:01 pm, "Audrey S." <thebloodycount...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Re: Shirley H
>
> Bacevich, A. 2009, February 23. Afghanistan Surge is Not Worth the
> Cost in Blood and Treasure. U.S. News and World Report.http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/23/afghanistan-surge-i...
I agree with you that our two articles both authored by Bacevich
provide an interesting contrast to each other. It also serves as a
representation of how corrupt and stubborn our government has become
that regardless of who is in office, this war will continue. As
recently seen, while Obama is compromising on his promise to remove
all troops from Iraq in a timely manner, he is also fulfilling his
campaign promise to boost support in Afghanistan, thereby committing
America in it's continuance of these wars. The “sliver of hope” that
Bacevich speaks about in your article choice, “The Right Choice? The
Conservative Case for Barack Obama,” has all but been eradicated as
Obama has no intent of truly ending the Long War.
On Jun 17, 3:01 pm, "Audrey S." <thebloodycount...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Re: Shirley H
>
> Bacevich, A. 2009, February 23. Afghanistan Surge is Not Worth the
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages