April 1
IB US History
Focus:
WWI
CW:
turn in graded discussion questions
notes: An Unsettled Peace
W. Wilson graded discussion
HW:
Text pp. 666-70; 672-73
--------------------------------------
Psych (1;4)
Focus:
CW:
Unit 2 exam
HW:
TQ-Levels of Consciousness
posted by Mr. Carlisle at 7:27 AM
20 Comments:
There is a war because each side has different goals they want to acheive. So I think peace without violence is mostly impossible. Many countries possess nuclear bomb to prepare themselves for the worst case scenario, which is a war. I think they recognize that military involvement is inevitable to acheive peace.
3:11 PM
Can a gov't be expected to reduce its' arms right after a world-wide war? I think that Wilson was a major hypocrite as well as living in a dream if he expected that all the countries would reduce their arms significantly after such a bloody and horrific war.
12:38 PM
Ivan-Can you clarify how his call for arms reduction made him a hypocrite?
With weapons the tension between the nations in Europe would only get worse. It would be unrealistic for countries to disarm immediately, reduction is a process. No where in the Fourteen Points does it say that he wanted immediate demilitarization, just that nations take the steps to demilitarize. I think that is a realistic goal.
7:57 PM
Everybody either says we shouldn't get involved at all in the world's problems or we should completely. I agree with Brendan in that we need to focus on one problem at a time to create a good balance of focusing on our own issues and other countries' issues.
Also, most every country goes into war with the mindset that they're not going to lose that war. Peace without victory was impossible, especially in the second biggest war in the last century in which almost 9 million people died. No country would be willing to sacrifice victory in a war if 9 million people died in that war.
8:34 PM
I agree with Grant. The U.S needs to focus on problems that still linger in our society like Healthcare and also the reform of school systems. Not to mention we also need to fix our recession we are in. Getting involved in several other countries struggles will only result in military action which means more U.S soldiers being sent to more countries and staying there for years to come. Bring the focus back to the U.S!
If the U.S is supposed to be the "Policemen" of the world than what if the U.S Government and Obama start a slaughtering of innocent U.S civilians like what is happening in Libya... will we have countries coming to help us?
8:27 AM
I feel like by being in only one country at a time, we would get our "job" done more quickly and efficiently. By being in so many places at once, it takes longer to get things done and it costs way more money than it would to just focus on one problem at a time.
12:09 PM
what if a leader of another country started going against his country right now, in the way gaddafi currently is? would we respond the same way we did to gaddafi or differently? I believe it would depend what on how significant the damage is and if it involved our interest, like if the country is a big oil supplier or a needed trade country we made need to act right away. but if they aren't than maybe wait and take action when needed, especially if it is affecting the us directly, like putting americans in danger. reasons we wouldn't act would be because we are so caught up with the war in iraq and things in Libya. We also should focus on things at home first too.
1:20 PM
Estimated cost of the first ten days of the no fly zone in Libya: $550 million.
1:24 PM
Peace without Victory I don't think can be achieved because everyone will still be in conflict with each other and it will just set up another war. If one did try to have peace without victory no one would win and the countries will want to discriminate against their opposing side declaring they really won however that would lead to what happened to the Germans after WW1 and create tension between the countries.
I believe it was bad the US entered the war because our reason for entering does not correspond with what Wilson was declaring in his speech. I don't believe the US should have entered the war to only spread democracy. It is selfish to believe that what works for the US will work for everyone. Also the US was allies with everyone in the war and it doesn't make sense for the US to enter on one side and not on the other. I believe we should have tried to be the peace maker between the countries, and negotiate a peace so these countries could come to terms on why they were fighting the war in the first place and resolve it. By choosing a side the US made the war worse and caused the outcome of the war.
I'm also wondering why the "Peace Without Victory" is dated as Jan 22, 1917 and "Wilson Asks for War" is dated April 2nd 1917. Was the US out of the war during the first article? That doesn't make sense to me.
1:36 PM
@Kayla: I wasn't calling Wilson a hypocrite for his arms reduction but rather for his urge to peace when the U.S. wasn't even involved in the war contradicting how he asked for war only several months later.
3:15 PM
While I do agree that the U.S. must fix problems within our own country, we can't just remain un-involved around the world. Many people think that the U.S. is the best country on earth, I am one of those people, but that title comes with a responsibility to provide help where it is needed. If the U.S. is to be called the greatest country in the world, we have to prove it, and I believe that we are doing so by intervening in intense situations around the world.
4:08 PM
I agree with matt and i would add that if the U.S would leave other countries and focus on Libya alone than we would be able to focus our time and effort into solving what is going on their.
7:55 PM
It's nice to think that America can intervene in intense problems around the world, but America cant. There are tons of other intense situation that America chooses not to involve itself in. And there is nothing wrong with that. America is only the "greatest" country because it is strong and in order to maintain that strength, America needs to protect its interest. Involving America in the intense problems of the world will likely do more harm than good. America is struggling domestically and although conditions aren't too bad, it is essential that that be the main focus of America at this point in time to ensure that the problem will not grow. Rising oil prices are part of the problem, so unfortunately, intervention in Libya is justified.
8:18 PM
Carlisle, during the discussion on Friday you asked me if I think the United States should intervene in The Sudan. While I do believe the US should do something, being "special" has nothing to do with it. The US, and other countries at that, should assist countries like Libya and the Sudan because they need the help, not for other reasons (being exceptional, oil, etc).
9:30 PM
I agree with Jonah. The US should not become involved purely because we are "special", but rather when there is a serious risk to the lives of civilians. I understand that this is probably low on the political list of incentives to join a war, but in a perfect world, this reason should be critical. Also, what gives the US the right to decide another country's form of government? (democracy) In some parts of the world, this might not be the best situation, where they need strong stability. The US should help the people choose their form of government.
10:18 PM
I also agree with Grant, that the US should indeed focus on the problems within the country, however we should not neglect issues in other countries as well. America should protect her interests, at least for now, until the economy is better, but should also lead by example. Helping countries in need By leading by example, I hope other countries would help America if it comes to Brendan's situation.
I watched Right at Your Door by the way. The movie was pretty good, I definitely agree that the ending was a little unexpected. I blame the police.
10:30 PM
Jimmy! You rule. I want to hear your thoughts on the movie.
10:32 PM
I agree that the US should try to not involve itself in every single dispute, but I think that if the USFG does get involved in aid, they should do so in non-militaristic ways. For example, I don't think the US should give financial aid straight to Karzai in Afghanistan due to corruption, but I think they should give any COIN funding to the jirgas. The jirgas have showed that they can stabilize Afghanistan a lot better than we can.
11:31 PM
US should involve itself to the events around the world because everything is global now. What affects the other countries will eventually affect US as well. So, intervening in advance to minimize the damage would be the wisest decision to make. However, I do agree that US should concentrate on one or two at maximum to efficiently deal with the situation.
11:57 PM
I think the US should be actively involved in the world. Sticking out heads in the sand won't help our interests or anyone else. I believe using all the forces at our disposal will best serve our interests.
10:42 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home