Foreign Policy Discussion Continues
posted by Mr. Carlisle at 2:35 PM
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
About Me
- Name: Mr. Carlisle
- Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
I'm a native South Carolinian and I attained my undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of South Carolina. I taught fourth grade for two years in the Mississippi Delta and two years at an alternative high school in Western North Carolina. I have been at Tigard High School since the fall of 2003, where I teach U.S. History and Psychology.
Previous Posts
- March 21
- This could be in YOUR future as you enter the "rea...
- March 20
- Head's Up--IB US HISTORY
- One More Terrifying Story
- What Happens to Civil Liberties During Wartime
- March 19
- (WWUST?)
- March 14
- Old people and technology don't always mix, howeve...
26 Comments:
I think that with all foreign policy tools, the US needs to learn how to attack the targeted but not the persons of the state. I think that going to all out war causes unnecessary problems with the good-hearted civilians of a state, and it is better when the US becomes the head of a peace initiative instead of just going in and blowing up leaders. You know why the statue of justice is blid? Because ALL people are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If the US was able to improve the use of the ICC or other justified means of getting terrorists/ horrible leaders out of control, than it would be plausible to actual spread moral diplomacy while keeping to a realpolitik mindset.
4:27 PM
Ok, so you were saying how your friend thought we should only follow "moral diplomacy," but if we invaded a bad country then all of their allies would attack us and it would lead to a really big war, right?
4:54 PM
I don't remember who said it, but i agree with the fact that if we as a country go to war against another country in order to "help" people and make things better then we should go in and do that for every country in need, not just the ones that secretly have something that we want.
4:54 PM
Seriously though, if they take out that oil, I thought gas would be bad now, I couldn't afford it at all! I don't want to keep playing police to everyone, we already have alot of debt,and have alot of things us as a nation need to do, not spending our time fighting in a war that we don't NEED to and is unnecessary. I am not saying this one, but just in general. I am glad I am not Obama, or any president...I don't know how I could deal with all the things he and all presidents have to deal with, I don't think some presidents get enough credit; plus people judge them on what they DIDN't do, and for all the people who judge, you probably couldn't do any better...Just sayin.
5:03 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/health/2012/03/21/exp-cohen-and-pink-slime-in-ground-beef.cnn
this is off topic- but this video is about how safeway is stopping the use of pink slime- thought it was interesting :)
5:05 PM
This subject is obviously very personal for me because my whole family lives in Tehran. A war with Iran won't do anything except cost trillions of dollars and kill thousands of people. The Iranian government is extremely complex and corrupted. And it's not just Ahmadinejad, there's Khamenei too. The Iranian people HATE their government and the only way to get rid of these insane leaders is to have the Iranian people have another revolution and over throw them. In 2009, it almost happened, but due to a lack of international aid, thousands of civilians were killed and eventually gave up. As for the nukes, Iran isn't going to attack Israel. That's practically committing suicide because America is going to bomb Iran then. Ahmadinejad has a big mouth and likes to say offensive things to get a reaction out of other leaders, but he knows the consequences of starting a war and he knows Iran doesn't stand a chance.
5:18 PM
I agree with Sara. Tensions are already high enough between Iran and the US, and I know that Iranians already know that the US has more military might than they do, so they're not going to do something stupid. I honestly have a lot of sympathy for the Iranian civilians because their own country is being discriminated against because of their corrupted government. That's not their fault, so the US should protect those people and especially, not bomb Iran. People who live under a selfish and corrupted government (anywhere- not just Iran)are not at fault and should not be punished (or killed) for what they cannot control. That's just cruel.
As for US Foreign Policy, in my honest opinion, I feel like the US plays the role of a policeman too often. To be blunt, it's tiring and irritating. I have personal reasons for saying this, and while most Americans will probably not agree with me, I know a lot of people, all over the world, do. Interference doesn't show masculinity or strength; it shows an inability to let go and let other nations or peoples do what they want to do (ON THEIR OWN TURF!!!). Like, humiliating Germany with the War-Guilt Clause, fining them money that they don't have, and especially (this is the BIGGEST pet peeve for me), demilitarizing them. That's not appropriate, and again, it doesn't show "peace." It shows a manipulative control-freak of a nation. I won't say too much about it now, but when we get to the WWII unit, I will be very fired up. When the US threw two nuclear bombs over Japan, and then forced the Emperor to declare to his people that he was not a god (if this sounds stupid to any of you, I'm sorry, but guess what? It's important), and THEN demilitarized them, that caused an intense hatred of the US. That's all I'm going to say for now.
5:30 PM
*money that they DIDN'T have.* Sorry, got a little upset there.
5:32 PM
I really appreciate everyone's comments so far, please keep it up.
@Emily,
That's a slim possibility as the leaders I'm referring to most likely won't have any allies and/or alliances with other countries.
5:50 PM
I agree with this article. Iran will not survive if they bomb Israel or the US. If Iran does anything at all, like shutting down the Straight of Hormuz, there will be a crap storm for them. Not only the US will go after them.
The leaders of Iran know that. If the article is correct, then Iran will play it very cautious.
6:05 PM
I think that the U.S. in an ideal world should have moral diplomacy as our foreign policy. If there was a big group of nations that went out and helped other nations, I feel like those nations that helped would get a good reputation. Then those who have been helped would recognize that and help the nations in return with things that we need help with. But since we don't live in an ideal world, I think a middle path between realpolitik and moral diplomacy should be our foregin policy. I mean how are we supposed to help other nations when we don't even have it together yet? Another reason is like what Emily said, what will happen if we invade a bad country?
6:23 PM
What hit me the most about the discussion part today was when we talked about the concept of 8 thousand people getting killed while we are living our typical lives where we think we have it hard because of homework. It kind of makes me feel bad, and over the top it makes me sad too, for more than one reason.
7:27 PM
Marilyn,
I'm bummed you feel sad about what's happening in Syria, however, I am happy you're thinking about it. My intention was to encourage you guys to start thinking about the world around you and what's happening in it.
We can all do our part to help make the world a better place.
7:37 PM
I think that it is crazy how it only takes a few people to either help or risk death of many people. To be honest it really bothers/ scares me that by a few words that come out from our president we can easily go into war and cause millions of deaths more. I dont the whole idea is just crazy. Oh and about the article I thought it was kinda intresting how nuclear scientist from Iran where being killed, again because it only took the words of ne person, or a few. If this keeps going I think the humans will kill themselves off.
7:38 PM
I think we should avoid sending troops to Iran. I think we should take a little breather from being world police and pay off some of the major debt we have. We should also look into strengthening the United Nations somehow. Maybe then it could prevent wars in the future. With many countries acting as world police, and working towards the same goal of world peace, there would be less conflicts of interest and maybe world peace would finally be attainable.
7:49 PM
I completely agree with what Sara and Harrison said, as well as the article about Iran bombing us or Israel.This goes back to the discussion today when you asked what costs more, letting Iran have the weapons they have, or going to war with them in order to prevent them from using them. I think that ideally, it would be awesome if they didn't have these weapons and have the capability of at any moment attacking either the US or Israel because it would help a lot of people like the president sleep at night. However, they are mostly likely not going to use them because although they can talk, they know that if they did anything we would wipe them off the face of the earth. If Iran attacked Israel it would not be in their best interest. I think the biggest thing to worry about is not Iran starting something, but rather Israel.
7:52 PM
About Mr. Carlisle's friend, he has a good idea, but war will always happen, because that is what naturally happens when people have to share the earth. Moral diplomacy is a noble reason to enter a war, but it takes too much money from the government and the people to do this. Not everybody is willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. The world seemingly revolves around money, and until the money and natural resources problems are fixed, I don't think the US can do anything.
8:55 PM
Brian Josephson
I think the U.S. should concern itself with the problems as long as it doesn't take away our resources that we use to fix our own domestic problems. We can't help other countries become like us if we are hurting as well. The primary focus should be our country, then any extra resources we have should be diverted to helping with international problems.
8:56 PM
I agree with Sara that a war with Iran wouldn’t do anything except cost trillions of dollars and kill thousands of people. Also that it would bring the gas prices way up. But, as Sara was saying that the Iranian people HATE their government so much why doesn’t the U.S. help them to rebel against their government? Also like how you were saying earlier today during class Mr. Carlisle which one is more important stopping nuclear power or war. I think it is nuclear power because Iran really doesn’t want to go into war with the U.S. or Israel because if they started something they know we would wipe them off the face of the planet. If the U.S. destroys their nuclear program though they are going to stop trying to challenge the U.S. quite so much too because they aren’t going to feel quite so powerful if their nuclear power is gone. Also if we actually did go to war with Iran I’m not sure if we would be quite as successful because we would be harming more civilians then actually getting to the enemy though we could be a lot more successful destroying their nuclear program. Also since so many Iranian people HATE their government the U.S. government could probably pay someone off that live in Iran to try and destroy the nuclear program. I believe it would work because Iranians would have more motivation then the U.S. to destroy the nuclear program.
9:05 PM
I feel like America had to get involved because of the huge debt that Brian and France had, and if they were not able to pay us back, then the whole society would become unstable, and this would lead to chaos. Basically, America got involved for economical reasons, and in national affairs, so therefore, you can say that America was powered by realpolitik.
9:55 PM
I doesn't seem to matter, past or present, whenever the U.S decides to help a country in turmoil we get criticized for it. Whether our heart is in the right place or not.Sometimes I think it would be better if we moved towards a more modern version of isolationism.
Either that or embrace the role of world policeman and make the whole world "safe for democracy" whether they like it or not.
10:17 PM
Though I don't particularly like the idea of the US indoctrinating foreign governments/country's people, I do believe that in cases of a severely oppressive government, (mass murder, genocide...) the US should act via war, and not just leave a country to develop on its own. Post war the US should simply claim the saved country as its territory for use of resources and economical gain i.e. US exports to said territory. More to it than that, but consider it a "price" for the people's salvation.
10:35 PM
I completely agree with Sara that a war with Iran wouldn’t do anything kill thousands of people and cost a tons of money. Also it would raise gas prices even higher than they already are. Not like paying $4.15 per gallon isn't already bad enough. There are so many problems going on in the world that it's hard to wrap my head around everything that's going on, it's too exhausting to think about. The U.S. are the worlds policemen but we're also a generous country. The U.S. seems to always go out of their way to help other countries. Even today, we're in a extremely huge debt as a country and yet we're still helping other countries. I believe that we should get involved in a country's problem if it involves the lives of many people, and is an economic interest to us.
11:08 PM
As with the discussion regarding President Woodrow Wilson I feel like the American government always has a hidden reason behind their involvement in international issues. I also think that the only reason these presidents are able to say that they are going to help out is because they believe they are superior to those of the other countries. But talk is cheap you can glamorize your image of wanting to help out, but will they actually do it and do it with a full heart is the question. The American government appears to see themselves as one of the major rulers of the world and they feel the need to aid inferior countries and shape the world around their values. If other societies don't choose to embrace democracy then would they still bother helping against injustice. We don't know but relating to the current Foreign Policy issues I think that other democratic governments if they truly embrace democracy should help the people fight for their rights however they cannot force anything upon them. And if they claim to want to help the people then technically help out with any country whose citizens face inequality and injustice. But they tend to focus on countries whom we have conflicts with. It seems crazy that people seem to think killing masses of people will solve killing of masses of people. War will not solve all the problems with Iran and other countries. It will just take away time and money from all sides and inevitably there wont be many problems solved and there will still be tension with defeat. I also believe that the people of the world should get the option of war because the governments are ruled by rich people who don't take into consideration the majority of the population and what they want. There are no real solutions to problems in the world because we are all different and stubborn and selfish.
I wish the world would just embrace Barney's policy! Seems like the right way to go! hahaha
11:21 PM
As with the discussion regarding President Woodrow Wilson I feel like the American government always has a hidden reason behind their involvement in international issues. I also think that the only reason these presidents are able to say that they are going to help out is because they believe they are superior to those of the other countries. But talk is cheap you can glamorize your image of wanting to help out, but will they actually do it and do it with a full heart is the question. The American government appears to see themselves as one of the major rulers of the world and they feel the need to aid inferior countries and shape the world around their values. If other societies don't choose to embrace democracy then would they still bother helping against injustice. We don't know but relating to the current Foreign Policy issues I think that other democratic governments if they truly embrace democracy should help the people fight for their rights however they cannot force anything upon them. And if they claim to want to help the people then technically help out with any country whose citizens face inequality and injustice. But they tend to focus on countries whom we have conflicts with. It seems crazy that people seem to think killing masses of people will solve killing of masses of people. War will not solve all the problems with Iran and other countries. It will just take away time and money from all sides and inevitably there wont be many problems solved and there will still be tension with defeat. I also believe that the people of the world should get the option of war because the governments are ruled by rich people who don't take into consideration the majority of the population and what they want. There are no real solutions to problems in the world because we are all different and stubborn and selfish.
I wish the world would just embrace Barney's policy! Seems like the right way to go! hahaha
11:21 PM
off subject...this is for carlisle
http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Pandemic-2.html
9:14 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home