APLG 4th and 5th period
For those of you confused about where the clip is linked...it is now linked sorry. Watch the 6+ minute video clip of President Obama's recent speech on Syria. Write a paragraph in which you respond to the speech incorporating your own paradigm of government from our Sept.5th class discussion. I am moving due date back to Sat. Sept 7th at midnight because of my blog secretary's stupity. (Sorry for those of you that accessed the blog and there was no link)
Enjoy, welcome back and great to have you in APLG,
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 1:00 PM
30 comments
30 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
My para"dimes" worth, going back to the discussion based in class is that our Federal government is in place to serve the will of the people. As of now, congress has not approved action in Syria, but in the instance that it does-hypothetically speaking- our representatives in both houses and the president would be neglecting the majority's view(based on polling). The emotional plea, "what's the right thing to do" is not valid as it is government's job to appease the people.
One of the paradigms me and my partner came up with in class was that the governments job is to protect the people in that country, which is true but it goes along with another paradigm we came up with of it's not necessary to send our military to other countries. I know that Obama says that in order to keep out citizens safe we have to make sure that Syria's chemical warfare doesn't spread to other countries, but if the UK failed at sending military what makes you think that the US will do any better? - Maddie McCullough
The president controls all decisions was the paradigm of which m partner and I created. President Obamas speech, however, opposes this paradigm. Although he formed and promoted the idea that the U.S. must do what is morally right and send our armed forces to Syria, Obama himself is not able to override Congress decision. Sorry Obama if that doesn’t seem to “float your boat” but Congress are superior and always win.
The paradigm I have found for the US is protecting America and its interests, but from this clip what does military action in Syria have to do with protecting US interests. I am more focused on the fact that the president believes military action should be allowed even before the UN finishes the investigation of the chemical weaponry, which as stated is a considered a worldwide offense placing it in more than just the USA's interests. Protecting against terrorists is important, which Obama said this may make them use chemical weaponry, but the use of saying this will help the fight on terrorism is starting to sound like McCarthyism. -Ryan Christianson
For me, I have developed this paradigm that the United States is very often involved in the affairs of other countries. We tend to fight in too many wars that are unnecessary to put the lives of our troops at risk. We are kind of like the international police. In this situation going on in Syria though, I think Obama has the right idea. The Syrian government is using chemical warfare on their own people, which is horrible and morally unjust. It is in the United States' best interest to strike against Syria so that we can defend our own national security. We must get the point across to Syria and other countries that using chemical warfare for destruction and injuring/killing people is cruel and unjust. -Zach Higgins
My paradigm is that the U.S., by itself, gets too involved in other countries' affairs- if chemical warfare has truly been banned, it is not solely the U.S.'s job to "punish" Syria, if you will, for their war crime- it is the entire UN's job to come together and try and stop the crime. However, I believe that the UN is stuck in paradigm paralysis because, going off of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, they believe involvement in other countries' issues will lead to only meager improvement, or perhaps even worse situations. However, that was the U.S.'s work alone. If the entire UN worked together to prevent what THEY AGREED is illegal, outcomes might be different, and so, I believe the UN should neither be shutting the US down, nor should the US be trying to take too much action without UN approval -Melissa Brown
The United States government has good intentions and the safety of its people in mind. President Obama's proposal is not to join into the war in Syria. It is to punish their leaders for using chemical warfare, which is agreed on by 98% of the world to be immoral. Although some may think that it is not America's job to do so, someone must take action. Obama sees this as a threat to America and the rest of the world. By acting against it he is trying to discourage them from ever doing it again in hopes to protect the people of his country. Obama is taking into account the opinions of Congress to get a sense of how the whole country feels about his idea. Although many people will not agree with the decision made, it must be accepted. Each state has chosen their representatives to be their voice and we must let them do their jobs.
Jamie Knox
One paradigm that my partner and I came up with in class about the government was that just one individual does not approve a decision made within the country. President Obama's speech about the crisis in Syria supports my paradigm. One individual is not "calling the shots", because the President is seeking authorization for force on Syria by the United States representatives in Congress. I believe that this is a healthy way to run a government, because then more than one voice is heard.
One of the paradigms I came up with about the government was that it can be biased and not give its people all of the information. I felt that Obama's speech was attempting to persuade the US to invade Syria to make them think it was the right thing to do, but he didn't show Americans the negative outcomes possible from invading Syria. Another paradigm to support my thoughts is that government leaders, such as the president, do what they want to do or think is "best" regardless of the opinions of the country. He is asking Congress, but does Congress even care about our opinions either? Obama and Congress will do what they want to do regardless of what the people think, and will try to convince us that it is best, even if it truly isn't. Ciera Hardyman
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think that many members of Congress and citizens of this country have been regressing to a paradigm of isolationism because they feel it will better serve the country, and so I doubt the president will get congressional support. And normally, I think the United States gets too involved in taking other countries' problems on, but this situation makes sense. If chemical warfare becomes the precedent of war it will endanger many more lives than those of Syria's. However, I'm not sure how effective a possible air strike will be without the aid of other allies because then it appears as if the United States is the only country who enforces UN standards. The aid of other allies is crucial.
- Samantha Sanders
One cynical paradigm about government is that members of a government will look out for themselves first (i.e. politicians seeking another term) and then the people. This paradigm seems quite justified considering Syria's government, which supposedly used chemical attacks to drive out rebels. However, the paradigm is less concrete when one considers Obama's decision and how it may not make him popular (with the UN or many citizens) but he urges for it anyway as he believes it is for the benefit of the United States.
-John-Michael Eberhard
I think the speech connected with the paradigm that leaders of government do not always tell the whole truth. Obama was providing a lot of reasons why the US needs to take action, but he did not tell us exactly what he will do and how he is going to fix the whole problem just that we need to get over there and protect the innocent. I also do not think it wise that the president is continuing without consent and help from the UN because it is possible that the UN may be able to come up with a better idea of how to fix the problem than those from just the US. Multiple heads are better than one, right?
This speech by our president falls into my own paradigm that the American government and military considers themselves to be international peacekeepers or policemen. I think this idea is backed up by the many examples of our military fighting wars not on our own ground or for our own cause. It makes sense to me that the murders in Syria was a breach of internationally understood laws and agreement. I think it correlates that this issue should therefore be handled on an international scale, or by the UN. I wonder what reason our President thinks this is a healthy choice of actions, and why the UN does not think it reason enough.
-Paul Edlund
A paradigm I hold is that the U.S. Government much too often feels that that they must get involved in the affairs of other countries. And while I do believe something must be done in Syria to stop chemical warfare since it seems Syria has gone against set international agreements, the U.S. should not be doing anything without the backing of the UN. And it seems that the UN will not work with the U.S. right now, since the government currently has to work around the UN to do anything. So currently Congress will probably vote against pursuing military action, like with what happened in the UK, until the UN decides that something must be done. Overall, I believe that the U.S. must not act too rashly and wait to get UN approval before pursuing military action.
-Lucky Volety
One paradigm that I have heard is that the government often pretends to be blind to something until it becomes too large to ignore. This paradigm is supported immensely when it comes to the Syrian conflict. Where were the U.S. forces when the Syrian army started firing on peacefully protesting civilians? Where were they when the Syrian Army began dropping bombs on whole towns, resulting in huge civilian casualties? Where were they when the death toll rose above 100,000? But when the news of chemical weapons arises, the government and the American people cries out in outrage. Now, because the U.S. was avoiding the problem, it has become too late to craft a quick end to this conflict. Due to the inaction of our government, thousands more Syrian civilians will die while Congress debates over what they should have decided a while ago.
-Emma Pankratz
My paradigm is the slightly cynical idea that the government may do whatever it wishes, no matter the opinions of its citizens or other countries or organizations. From Obama's speech, it is evident that he can make motions to move forward with the intent of aiding the people of Syria, even though the United Nations has not done so and the movement in the United Kingdom failed in Parliament. This does not seem to be the wisest action to me; should the President's plan pass Congress or get his overriding approval and the United States make an enemy of Syria, they have not yet been supported by any others in the decision to take military action against the Syrian regime. I also do not think that the United States should stand idly by, for if no one else takes action, Israel or Saudi Arabia are likely to in order to decrease the chance of their own enemies in the Middle East deciding to use chemical warfare on their countries. I have experienced a paradigm shift; I now believe that whatever the U.S. government decides to do, there will always be someone who does not agree or is unhappy with the choice.
A paradigm I find myself a part of is believing that being the elected leader in a Democracy, the leader is expected to make decisions based on the popular opinion. In this situation, Obama is not following the popular opinion by believing the U.S. should take military action. Given this situation, my belief of this paradigm is shifting because although the majority of American people don't believe taking military action is the right decision, at the same time Obama can't please everyone and he must go with what he believes is best for the country/world. Violence like this should not be ignored and some sort of action should be taken. Due to this situation in Syria, my paradigm towards the government has changed.
-Shannon Adkins
One paradigm proposed about the government is that the President has complete control over the country. This, however, is not true because President Obama is in favor of taking action against Asad and he has not done so yet because he is not the only one who has a say. He is instead proposing that we take a vote.
~Allison Garrett
A paradigm that is most clearly known throughout the United States is that democracy is what's best for the world. With that being said, I believe it is wise for Obama to look to Congress to help make the decision on what to do with the conflict in Syria. However, Obama also explains to America that as the leader of the country he can alone make the decision on whether or not to take action. I believe that it was a wise move on Obamas part to ease the nation's paradigm of democracy and seeking the help of Congress.
-Brianna Colvin
My paradigm of the US government is that they they are supposed to help their own country first and foremost, but they always seem to want to get involved with conflicts in other countries. This video supports my paradigm because its about how US government is getting involved in a conflict in Syria, which right now isn't affecting us much. However, in his speech, Obama does do a good job explaining how if this chemical warfare were to continue, it could affect our country directly by threatening the national security. Another government paradigm of mine is that the US government does a lot of things that the UN doesn't want them to, which is directly addressed in this speech; Obama is ready to take action without the UN's approval.
So the paradigm that is most in effect is that the U.S is basically the world's police force. When the US sees a country mistreating their own people or threatening others, we think we should help them either militarily like the Iraq war or financially like buying arms for rebels during the Soviet Invasion in the 70's. The problem is that we are not always able to help in these countries, sometimes making the situation worse. Iraq is experiencing the worst bombings since we invaded them in 2005. In order for America to have freed itself from Great Britain was to have a revolution and then 100 years later have a civil war without outside help to finally become the country it is today. Maybe this is happening to Syria at the moment, maybe we need them to fight for their freedom in order to make themselves a more unified state.
My paradigm is that the world looks to the United States for leadership in times of crisis. When the United Nations security counsel refuses to act against a country that has committed war crimes, it is up to the U.S. to take leadership. Being the sole superpower, we need to lead without being a bully. We have to be careful not to over use our power. That is why the president is talking about a measured response. The challenge is to punish them for the use of chemical weapons without influencing the internal conflict in Syria. -Ashton Andersen
My paradigm is that the U.S. has become the world's police. I would like to ask who made us that? Who has the authority to designate what is wrong and what is not? When we were trying to separate from the British and build our country, we didn't have someone telling anyone what to do or how to behave. Some of the things that we and the British did were not acceptable. But nobody stopped anybody except for the other country. Yes, we had help. But when it came down to it, we took care of ourselves. Because of this, it made us a stronger country and unified us. Yes, Syria is doing things that aren't acceptable. But the Syrian people haven't ever officially asked for our help. We are just sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong and we will end up cutting off our noses to spite our faces. And then we'll end up like Voldemort- with no nose, and with no power in the end.
The main paradigm that was chosen is that government does not have the right to harm it's citizens. I feel like Obama's decision is justified because Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has endangered the well-being of his country's civilians by exposing them to chemical warfare. Also, Obama has justified his actions by following through on another crucial government paradigm that the government is an extension of the will of the public masses, he has done this by stalling his military action until it is approved by congress.
one of my paradigms, not discussed in class, but nonetheless a paradigm which I find strongly in this. it is the president, though bestowed many powers, his (or her) main purpose is to convince the public that issues are well defined. Mainly this, but also somewhat helping people to come up with an opinion. This, though alleviating some pressure on the public, leads to ignorant people speaking loudly on subject which they know nought of.
A paradigm I have for our government is that they often look into world affairs more often than necessary. We may be an "example" to other democratic countries, however the money and time funded into stopping the chemical warfare in Syria may be blown out of proportion similar to the Bush administration. The majority of US citizens seem to be leaning towards staying out of the crisis in Syria, which the government should take into consideration given they serve the People. What may be the right thing to do for human rights, may not be the right thing to do to keep our country safe. -Lindsey Amundson
One paradigm that I thought of during class is that the government needs to spend lots of money on its military. This established the US as a guardian of the world and help protect humans from cruel leaders. This causes some countries to look up to us and if we didnt do this then like Obama said, it would seem as if we didnt care about the human rights of others which would have others look down on us. At the same time, i feel like its not always our business to get involved in every conflict possible, but there should be a line drawn, especially when chemical warfare is used on a country's own people. -Amjad Murdos
One paradigm of the government is that we as democracy let the people of our country let our people vote on important decisions. It is another paradigm specific to the United States that we protect countries in need with our defense. These two decisions can unite or oppose each other based on the decision at hand. In the case of Syria, Obama talks about such a "heinous" act should not be tolerated, yet he decides to let the people have the ultimate vote on the topic as he remains faithful to our country's core values.
-Chloe Davidson
Post a Comment
<< Home