Tonight's Homework

Please watch the 60 Minutes interview with General McChrystal and come to class prepared to discuss your reaction.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5345009n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

Racism in our country

After reading President Carter’s thoughts, I whole heartedly agreed with him when he said that the outbursts and rallies against the new President in the recent months all come from racism. President Carter has every right to be so angered by the recent outbursts (including signs of Obama being compared to Hitler) that whether intentional or not, offended many people in this country. Though it’s a sad thing to realize, I believe that it’s the truth; that peoples buried racism is surfacing due to the many critical decisions made or to come in the near future by a President with different colored skin than any President we’ve had before. When Senator Wilson of South Carolina so rudely yelled “You lie!” at President Obama, the people of the United States reacted in the way they should have. They were appalled that someone could have the nerve to disrespect the most esteemed and valued member of the US government. There are however the few who are glad that Wilson made the remark, Senator Knotts (for example) said the following; "Washington has been getting away with lies for too long....It's time we have people like Joe Wilson stand up," (Wall Street Journal). Without question, Senator Wilson’s action was the most impolite and offensive thing to ever do while in the presence of the President of this country. Though the public reacted in the correct way by scolding the Senator and supporting the President, it is necessary to realize that there are problems with our government and our politicians. More respect and enthusiasm is needed throughout the different branches of government, especially now at a time when crucial choices are made daily pertaining to national and international security issues. Though it was believed that the level of racism within the country has receded, it is now clear that many people’s true feelings are beginning to re-emerge causing them to verbally attack and insult members of other races. So many of our most important historical documents and verbal texts include the word “we”; in my eyes “we” means that for always and forever, no matter what race you are, you are an important member of this country and that is why I support and agree with President Carters beliefs on the subject.

Dade, Corey and Bendavid, Naftali. “ 'You Lie!' Jars Washington but Resonates Back Home.” September 2009. Wall Street Journal. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125258756088899359.html>

“Racism and President Obama - Do some people oppose Obama because he's black?.” September 2009. The Week.

"You lie" Outburst

There is no doubt that the action, by Senator Wilson on the floor of the Senate during President Obama's presentation was completely inappropriate and embarrassed not only the Republican Party and the institution, but also our country. Senator Wilson has formally apologized and shown distress over his outburst. He admits that he could have dealt with the issue with much more tact and grace. I personally believe the outburst was more on account of a difference of believe and of the controversy of the issue than of racism. Former President Jimmy Carter lived in an age where racism was still very much an issue. He witnessed animosities at their highest during the Montgomery Bus Boycotts and the sit-ins during the 1950s. Times have changed since then. People have changed since then. Jimmy Carter is acting on his knowledge of what life was like then, and what people would have acted upon at those times. Senator Wilson is of a different generation than President Carter. He has grown up with a more modern ideology. It is reasonable to consider racism prevalent because there is still some animosity; however there is evidence that levels of racism have actually dropped since Obama has taken office. His success during and after his presidency could lead to more respect and appreciation of the African American race. In any case, the public’s active response to this outburst has been reassuring as to the levels of racism in the country. Because everyone was so quick to condemn Senator Wilson, and come to the President’s defense, it is safe to assume the public realizes an injustice was served, and no one, especially the President of the United States, regardless of his race, deserves that kind of disrespect. I truly believe more respect toward the government overall is necessary. Obama in particular is the head of our country and represents all of us to the international community. Just like the teacher of a class of students once we begin to publically show our disrespect it permits others to do the same. Vice-President Joe Biden was quoted saying "I was embarrassed for the chamber and a Congress I love. It demeaned the institution." The people have the responsibility to ensure the government is the best representation of the populations by questioning motives and methods of dealing with issues. However, we must all take into account that with the position these people have assumed they take on a great deal of responsibility. They must account for information and factors the public may not have access to or be aware of. The public must trust to a certain degree that politicians make decisions based on what is right and what will benefit the people the most, not just on public opinion. We must all trust that President Obama truly has the good of the people in mind as he attempts to provide all citizens with healthcare.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32767813/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112714470
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Racism-Dropped-Since-Obama-Took-Office-104464.shtml

Response to Carter's Article

Unfortunately, I have to agree with former President Carter when he says that racism still exists in a lot of the country. It is unfortunate that the people of America cannot look at the fact that we have a President that is African American in a positive way. Our country is finally making a positive change in rights of all citizens, and yet a lot of whites believe that African American's are inferior to them, which makes our country look hypocritical when we say the Pledge of Allegiance. "For liberty and justice for ALL". All, would mean blacks and whites equal. Racism in America has been around for hundreds of years. Starting when Americans came to Jamestown, and a Dutch slave trader traded a ship of Africans for food in 1619 [1]. Throught the years, the idea of Africans as an inferior race in America escalated to the 20th century, when a social group called the Klu Klux Klan formed [2]. The KKK was formed in Tennessee in the winter of 1865-66. They later became known as the "Invincible Empire of the South" in 1867 [2]. The KKK terrorized African Americans all the way up the the 1950's, and although they do no terrorize African Americans physically today, they still have extreme hate toward African Americans. The idea of racism to our President is appalling. We chose this man to lead our country in the right direction, and people have such extreme prejudice towards this man for the color of his skin, that they cannot even give him a chance to make a change. I agree with former President Carter that many citizens are very prejudice and believe that they are inferior. To be honest, I would like to see these people who are racist towards Obama become President.

I feel that there is some racism being implemented on President Obama. It is evident that the rude outbursts during Obama’s speeches are due to either the fact that they disagree with his plans for the country, or that they truly have racist feelings for the president. Some see Obama’s universal healthcare system as totally impractical and unrealistic, hence the offensive comments and gestures. There is clear controversy over this matter and it is not unlikely that this provoked such disorderly conduct.

Yet studies show that ever since the 9/11 al qaeda terrorist attack on the World Trade centers, racism across the country has showed a drastic increase. This statement supports the possibility that the government officials are racist. It seems to me that if someone with such governmental influence were to act in such a admirable way, they would have strong racist feelings towards the president. If they were not to act out of conduct against what Obama was saying, it could be assumed that they would be able to control their disagreement with the president’s statements because they solely don’t agree with his beliefs, not that they are racist.

In today’s society, one doesn’t commonly encounter someone who is racist, however there still are many racist groups that exist such as the Ku Klux Klan. They preached the extermination of African Americans, because they believe that the white race is far more superior. Therefore, there is definitely a possibility that people outside of this group are racist, and prefer to express their negative feelings towards other races by being impolite during the president’s speeches.

When Senator Wilson shouted out during president Obama’s speech, Obama had just finished stating that his healthcare system would not cover illegal immigrants. Having said this, either Wilson didn’t like the fact that illegal immigrants would still get healthcare after the reform, or, that they will get healthcare, but they should not because he is racist. It could go either way, but normally if someone were to read an article on Wilson’s interruption, they would think he simply disagreed with Obama’s idea for healthcare not being given to illegal immigrants. Yet isn’t there more than one person who feels that illegal immigrants should not get free healthcare?

So is Carter right when he says racism is the reasoning behind discourteous comments and actions against Obama? Truth is, no one really knows because the answer could go either way. Yes, there is undeniably a chance that Carter is racist and created a disturbance during Obama’s speech because of this. However, being a senator means being open minded, so he must have gone into this job acknowledging the fact that there will be other authority figures of different ethnicities. Knowing this, there could have been no way for him to be racist; therefore, he merely disagreed with Obama’s healthcare system reform.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/165/racism#RacisminNorthAmerica

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm

http://www.freep.com/article/20090924/NEWS15/90924070/1008/NEWS06/-You-lie--shouter-to-stump-Oct.-2-in-Jackson

Response to Carter Article

I agree with former president Carter when he says that, “racism inclination still exists”. America was built on the backs of African-American slaves who were considered to be below the caucasian race. These racist views have carried on throughout the history of America as seen with the Jim Crow Laws, and Segregation in the early 1900’s and they are still present in todays society. I do not, however, agree with Carter when he says that, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American,". I do not believe that when Senator Joe Wilson shouted, “You Lie” during President Obama’s Speech on health-care reform that it was based off of racism. Although he interjected in an unorthodox way, his statement was not rooted in racism but rather his disagreement with the policy in itself. The animosity shown towards Obama is not from the color of his skin, but rather a difference in opinion based off of a political party. Many republicans, like Joe Wilson, do not agree with the comments made from President Obama concerning illegal immigrants not being eligible for health care, and though it is their right to disagree with the Presidents policies, it should have been done so in a more respectful manner. Obama is the head of State, the leader of our country and he should certainly be treated with the upmost respect from all parties in agreement or disagreement with his policies.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, also disapproves of the statements made by former President Carter on racism toward President Barack Obama. Issued in a statement on the subject Gibbs stated that, “The president does not believe that criticism comes based on the color of his skin. We understand that people have disagreements with some of the decisions that we’ve made and some of the extraordinary actions that had to be undertaken by both this administration and previous administrations to stabilize our financial system, to ensure viability of our domestic auto industry.” Furthermore, the President has accepted Senator Joe Wilson’s apology for his outburst at the joint session of Congress.

It would be a lie to say that racist views are non existent, but that does not mean that America has not come a long way from the extreme racism of the past. The election of the First African-American President Obama is evidence of this statement. Senator Joe Wilson’s comment to Barack Obama was very brusque, but it was certainly not one based off of racist views like former President Carter would seem to think. The comment was rooted from the difference in political party and their political views on an issue.

"White House Deflects Charges of Racism Leveled at Opponents - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com." Politics and Government - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com. Web. 26 Sept. 2009. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/white-house-deflects-charges-of-racism-leveled-at-opponents/?scp=4&sq=obama%20on%20racism&st=cse

"'You Lie!' Jars Washington but Resonates Back Home - WSJ.com." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com. Web. 26 Sept. 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125258756088899359.html.

Ms Field Loves Her IR Class

I am so proud of everyone for an excellent day of debate! Well done. IR I students are really getting the hang of things and are learning to be critical and go after others in a forceful, but diplomatic, manner. I love reading the chats--so much work is going into these working papers and draft resolutions. Thank you to all IR II students for their support of first year students. I can't wait until Monday to resume debate!

Responce to Carter article

I agree with Carter’s statement about racial inclination in regards to the President. Racial prejudice has been present since the creation of the United States of America and has continued to be a problem; clearly this racism is not going to end on a whim because the current president happens to be African American. Over the course of President Obama’s time in office and during his presidential campaign, there have been many statements and judgments made about his race and his ability to run our country in the correct way in order to benefit our people. But does his skin color really alter his ability to run our government in any way different than that of our other former presidents and political leaders?
It may be that Obama’s administration is “playing the race card... from the bottom of the deck." But it is not for sympathy. There is no way to deny that Obama has received a lack of respect from many people of the country, but is it really any worse than the criticism that Bush received as president? Or for that matter almost every other president. Obama has only begun to implement and achieve the goals he is looking to accomplish during his term, so why be so tough on him now? We do have his as the leader of our country for the next three and a half years and he has done a very good job in keeping his promises regarding health care and the war in Iraq. I believe, that the conflicts that have arisen in the past 8 months, were not solely the fault of Obama’s choices, but more so the disagreements between our top political parties. This was shown during Obama’s speech when South Carolina’s senator had the audacity to yell. “you lie” to the president. Thanks to his outbreak, I am given the perfect example to show the lack of respect towards the president these days.
But the truth is, is that our people, the people of the US, are the ones that voted him as president. Regardless of who personally voted for who, the fact is that the majority of the people in our country voted for, to be blunt, a black man. This only shows one thing, how far our country has actually come since the creation, since the time when each white plantation owner owned dozens of slaves, since the people of country were not able to sit together on a public bus, and since it was absolutely unheard of to assume that an African American man would be voted, by all American citizens, as President of our country.
There is no doubt in my mind that it will take a far longer amount of time to overcome racism and there is no guarantee that all racial ties will ever be cut.

Frank Harris III. (2009, September 17). A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN OPPOSITION AND DISRESPECT. Hartford Courant,A.19. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from Hartford Courant. (Document ID: 1861029511).Eugene Robinson. (2009, September 18). The Favor Jimmy Carter Did Us All. The Washington Post,p. A.25. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from Northeastern Newspapers. (Document ID: 1861361191).

Racism and Obama Presidency

Former president Jimmy Carter's stated this month, "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president" in reference to racist attitudes regarding Obama's presidency.

There is certainly a possibility that Obama's presidency faces racist opposition. All presidencies face opposition for one reason or another. However, I personally feel that society today likes to pull out the "race card" way to much. Whenever, there is some kind of problem in society a lot of people like to blame their race or the race of others for it.

For example, a lot of African Americans are quick to say that the reason they were stopped by a police officer, or turned down for a job is because of their race. In some circumstances, this may be true, however certainly not in all of them. Caucasian people are not exempt from this either. A lot of white colored people like to complain about "reverse discrimination." For example, giving African American's special scholarships for college some whites feel is unfair because there are no special scholarships just for them.

What I am really trying to get at, is that racism is an easy answer to a problem because it is something that had been around since humanity has been in existence and thus is one that everyone understands and most can even relate to on a personal level. While I do believe that there are those people out there who think that Obama shouldn't be President just because he is black, I also believe that society as a whole is slowly growing more tolerant, especially the younger generation. This can be seen in our very own school. A club like GSA (Gay, Straight Alliance) would not have enacted or even allowed fifty or even twenty years ago. Now, it has formed, has members, and is respected by the faculty and student body. Why? Because most people are starting to not care about sexual preference differences. The same I believe is true for racial differences. Overall, I believe most of society is accepting to a black president and the reason there is controversy is because the media during the campaign and now have emphasized the fact that he is “The FIRST black president" just to gain more viewers and to write a better story.

So, then the question becomes, " If its not racism, than why is there animosity toward Obama?" The same reason that there is animosity toward any president. He's the opposite political party that that person supports. Or there could have been a decision he made that some people might not agree with. Or maybe its just because hes just not a good speech maker (*cough* George Bush *cough*) <-- (No Offensive Republicans) Either way, there are numerous reasons that a person does or does not like a President and I think we and everyone else should start thinking about those reasons instead of simply throwing the race card around just to make a good news story.

Works Cited
http://thefuturebuzz.com/2009/01/02/gen-y-observations/

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/stephen_a_smith/20070201_Stephen_A__Smith____Using_racism_as_an_excuse_.html
http://www.theaquarian.com/2009/09/22/reality-check-the-race-illusion-jimmy-carter%E2%80%99s-insult-as-excuse-making/

Response to Carter article

Carter’s statements are not unfounded. The United States does have a history of racism towards minorities. Just over 150 years ago African-Americans were used as slaves. (Franke-Ruta) It is not improbable to believe that people take President Obama less seriously and insult him because he is African-American. However I believe there has been an overall decrease in manners and respect for the position of president within the United States. George Bush was ridiculed and showed as much disrespect as Obama, if not more due to his problems with the word nuclear and heavy southern drawl. And while noone ever stood up and yelled “You Lie,” just as many Democrats and Republicans twittered, facebooked, and texted during his addresses. (Gavin) Before Nixon’s administration, the presidency held a certain respect that no long exists today. When Nixon disrespected the American people by lying to them in a number of scandals, they lost respect for him. And by seeing that the position could be so easily ethically abused, many people lost respect for the institution.
Another possible cause of the American people’s disrespect for President Obama is the tension filled line between the Democrats and Republicans. The animosity has become so intense on both sides that as harsh as the Republican’s criticism of Obama is, the Democrat’s criticism of President Bush was equally harsh. Bill O’Reilly, of the extremely conservative Fox News Network constantly mocks Obama. On the other hand, Rachel Maddow who has a show on the very liberal MSNBC claimed she was insulted and embarrassed by Bush. (Shea) I believe that no matter what color the president is, as long as he is a Democrat, the Republicans will criticize him, and vice versa.
Another possible reason for the disrespect for Obama is the situation that the United States is in right now. We are in the middle of a financial crisis, two violent conflicts, and strained relations with other countries such as North Korea and Iran. In crisis, everyone tends to blame an authority figure, no matter who he or she is. To be fair, Obama did not cause the solution, he inherited it. It is possible that many people still blame him for not fixing the situation sooner.
There are many factors that account for the animosity towards President Obama. Race is certainly one of them. However it is certainly not the only factor, because there are plenty of people of many races that dislike, and like, Obama. An overall loss of respect for the position of President, tension between the two parties, and the current situation in America also contribute to his poor approval ratings.

Works Cited
Franke-Ruta, Garance. Carter Cites "Racism Inclination" in animosity towards Obama. 15 September 2009. 24 September 2009 .
Gavin, Patrick. The 10 Most influential D.C.Twitterers. 23 Feburary 2009. 24 September 2009 .
Shea, Danny. Rachel Maddow on Daily Show, "Insulted" "Embaressed" by Bush. 8 January 2009. 24 September 2009 .

Gadhafi is a Lunatic

You have to listen to Gadhafi's speech in front of the United Nations! Here is the link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/09/un_gadhafi_call_it_terror_coun.html

response to margo

In response to Margo’s post, I disagree when you say; “We, along with other animals, have violence as a built-in instinct,” or “war would always exist because it is human nature.” Though the first statement is true for some creatures, I don’t believe that violence is a built-in or pre-existing instinct for all people. There are many different opinions about this topic but it is my understanding that everything a person grows up to be and what they do comes from the environment they grew up in and the experiences they had while a child or young adult.

I am in agreement that sometimes war is the only logical choice and sometimes it cannot be avoided. But that doesn’t mean that everyone grows up with violence as the thing to revert to when something goes wrong. I think that it may have just been the way you phrased this sentence, but when reading it, it seems as if you’re justifying some acts of violence by using the idea that we’re born with it in us. Violence should be something that is reverted to ONLY when a person has no other options what-so-ever. This is sadly not always the case and some world leaders unfortunately always turn to violence and inflict harm as their first action. But in these cases I have to believe that their damaging ways come from people’s bad influences and bad examples, not from a pre-existing idea that they were born with.

I agree with everything else you said though, about the nature of war and the superiority idea that starts it all. I especially support the fact that “Often, war is not two-sided; if it was, both would attack each other in tandem.”

You! All of You!

All of you are so wonderful and answered the What is War? question much better than my World Politics Class here!

In Response To Austin Swank

Austin I have to disagree on the fact that war is nothing more than just our animal agressions rising in us, or that it's a cowardly way out from peace. Sometimes war is necessary, to preserve ones own dignity as a country. War is one country preserving their rights against another, or trying to impose their will upon another. There is no other way to put it. Everyone in the world feels as if their ideals and visions are the right ones; and why not? Why should one person's view be any better than the next. They could both work in the same way. That's what countries think about. There is no other way in the world these days to impose your will or protect your rights. Humans become more increasinly hostile as the years progress mostly due to world events. After 9/11 it seems americans have taken it in their hearts to cleanse the entire middle east. America as a nation was shattered when the twin towers felt, and retaliation was in order. I can understand that under the heat of the moment you would want to send you're entire country into war, but after a while this war you have started becomes a mistake. Countries with pride like the United States of America cannot just back out, they must prove a point first to show that there was a point. Wars are basically larger versions of 10 year old's in the playground. There's no other solution to something petty than to duke it out to assert your dominance. In the world these days dominance and past agressions is the only thing that will save you from everyone else.

Response

In response, I appreciate that Emily was able to mention that war is not only international but also internal. Many times we assume that war is conflict between multiple nations but this is not always the truth. Technically war can be any sort of conflict between peoples, but I agree that a conflict does not morph into a true war until a certain degree of aggression and violence has taken place. But where do we draw the line? There is no way to determine what degree of violence is high enough to be considered a war, especially with the multiple types of wars we have experienced throughout history. And to add to that point, if a war is not “a war” until the fighters have intended to declare war and done so with heavy force, then what DO we call those wars in which force and declaration have not yet taken place and will not take place, such as the Cold War.But I have to disagree with the second part of the definition pertaining to whether or not fighting against an idea constitutes as a war. Whether people are fighting over trade, land or ideas; if they have force and declaration, it is considered a war. Groups of peoples can be opposed against each other because of an idea, which can lead to conflict and aggression. Therefore, I do agree with Emily that the use of force is necessary for a war to be considered a war.

In Response to Courtney

I agree with your point that sometimes the bigger party of the two doesn't always have to win. This also applies to the Civil War, where everyone still believes that the North was victorious because the South retreated at the end, however, when looking at each battle individually, you see that te South won just as many battles as the North. On the topic of the Civil War, this was also fought over multiple ideas, such as state rights, slavery, and the fact that nobody in the South really liked Abraham Lincoln. I would just like to point out that your hypothesis that a war can be fought over an idea is possible, but hasn't happened can be proved wrong by the Civil War. I understand that you didn't really research this theory, but this was one of the biggest wars in our history and it greatly impacted our nation today. I also agree with you in that war is inevitable, because yes, sometimes violence is the answer, and if you were to just allow another country to attack your own and do nothing about it, the result would be incredibly unpleasant. Since you put that many people wil disagree, with you, I have no choice but to! We can avoid war, and I feel that the Civil War was avoidable, because it seems to me that if the North and South could have peacefully come to terms, the bloodiest war in history could have been evaded. Instead, manifest destiny just had to get in the way and egg on our country.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/15/carter_cites_racism_inclinatio.html

Click on this link and read the article titled, "Carter Cites 'Racism Inclination' in Animosity Toward Obama." Do you agree or disagree with the former president? Please answer thoughtfully and consult at least two additional sources.

What is War

By definition of War from Dictionary.com, war is "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air" [1]. But in my opinion, it does not necessarily have to be by land, sea or air. It could be fought by threats. Take the Cold War for example. Technically, the Cold War was not necessarily a "war" but threats between the USSR and the United States. The Cold War came about because of increasing tensions between the countries because of nuclear weapon threats. Hence the nickname the "Hot War". The Cold War was more of a verbal conflict. The United States and the USSR were more or less were trying to make each other look foolish. Threatening to denounce each others countries [2]. During this time period, the United States took extra precautions, in the event of a nuclear attack. Children would do drills in school in case of a bomb attack, hiding under desks (as if that were to do anything). This brings me to a more contemporary topic. On June 19, 2009, North Korean intelligence officials stated that they were planning on launching a Taepodong-2 which can cover over 4000 miles on Independence Day [3]. North Korea was planning for this missile to hit Hawaii. As we all know, this never happened, but it was alarming to many Americans, especially citizens of Hawaii. This goes under the idea that not all wars have to be violent conflicts. If the missile was to be launched, then im certain the United States would take the appropriate actions, that could have quite possibly led into a war with North Korea, but it didn't. Which shows that you can verbally threaten and it could be considered a form of war. Right now, America does not have the greatest relations with North Korea, which leads me to believe that it is not impossible, although it is unfortunate, that we could very well get involved in a war with North Korea if they do not do something about the excessive number of nuclear weapons that they are currently in possession of. After this verbal threat from North Korea, America took the proper steps as to securing anti- missile defenses around the small state of Hawaii. It is also known that 3 years ago, North Korea fired a missile at Hawaii and it was unsuccessful. The fact that the first time they were unsuccessful, but now they are trying again certainly sends a threatening message to the United States of America. The way technology is growing certainly makes it possible for North Korea to fire missiles at America. The Cold War and the situation in North Korea certainly could be considered wars. Although the definition may disagree. War could be without direct conflict. Which leads me to the answer of what war is. War is any altercation, or disagreement between two parties, whether it is verbal fighting, or physical.

What is War?

In my opinion, war is any sort of extended conflict that consists of two or more opposing sides. I do not think that all violent conflicts result in war. Two sides could have one battle, but it is not necessarily a war just because there was a conflict. I believe that for something to be considered war, it has to go on for an extended period of time. I can not say a specific amount of time, but it can not be something that is resolved quickly. Therefore, I would not consider any violent conflict a war, unless it continues on with each side battling to win. Just one violent outburst or conflict is not considered to be a war, in my opinion. With that being said about violent conflicts, I also believe there can be war without direct violence.

There does not have to be direct conflict between the opposing sides to have a war. For example, The Cold War went on for 46 years between the USSR and The United States. For all 46 years, there was never direct conflict, but it is still considered to be a war. The two opposing sides battled in other ways such as the Nuclear Arms Race, and The Space Race. Even though the two sides were not physically fighting, it was an ongoing battle for one side to beat the other in any way they could. There does not have to be violence involved for a conflict to be considered a war.

A modern day example is The War on Terrorism. Today, there is controversy as to whether it is actually a war or not. According to my definition of war, it is. This conflict has been going on since September 11, 2001, so it is clearly an extended conflict. There is direct and indirect conflict involved. The direct conflict is the actual troops fighting against terrorists and searching for them. The indirect conflict is the various legal disputes that have come up as of result of the war such as human rights issues between the U.S. military and the treatment of their prisoners of war. I personally do not see how The War on Terrorism couldn’t be considered a war.

I do not think war can only be between state entities. It doesn’t matter whether a side or sides in a conflict is considered a state or not for there to be war between them. War is war regardless of who the opposing sides are. War can even happen between two sides within one state, such as The Civil War. As long as there are two sides against each other in an ongoing conflict, it can be a war.

Unfortunately, I think there will always be war. War is a sad part of the human race that will never go away. I can not see there being a time when everyone in the world gets along well enough for there to not be any ongoing conflicts. All people are unique and will therefore have strong, opposing opinions that will sometimes result in extensive conflicts that will become war.

Works cited:

"War, The Philosophy of [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [IEP]. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.iep.utm.edu/war/#H2.

War is...

The definitions of war, although numerous, are not consistent. Encyclopedia Britannica states that war is a "state of conflict, generally armed, between two or more entities", Merriam-Webster claims that war is " a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations", and West's Encyclopedia of American Law says that it is "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." In order to really understand war and not just the definition, we must look back in time as well as thought -- war is derived from violence. Archaeological evidence supports that while civilizations had yet to be built, scores of tribal societies battled each other for food and shelter. Skulls surface that are shattered, punctured, bashed, and mushed together, obviously the affects of violent action. We, along with other animals, have violence as a built-in instinct. As centuries past, chieftains, rulers, emperors, and kings reigned over others because of their "superiority", which stemmed from defeating another with, you guessed it, violent means. Their hate toward other "superior" humans often resulted, and still results, in prolonged violence with agreeing parties. War, as it is called, was merely a way to get back at another ruler, and in a way, it still is. In order to have war, rulers must rise from violence and threaten other rulers with more violence. This is true with every war that has taken place; it is more of an attack on a ruler or a figurehead than it is to any one group of people. For example, all rules and laws that are enacted in a democracy are mostly in the interests of rulers (Congress), otherwise a bill wouldn't even get in the door of the House. The culture of a society is generally based on rules and regulations, and if other societies detest them, they go to war. These rules stem from the rulers themselves.

Often, war is not two-sided; if it was, both would attack each other in tandem. War is a result of an attack on another party and that party's self-defense. For example, before Pearl Harbor, we could have cared less about the "dirty Japs". After they bombed us, however, we abhorred the Japanese with every fiber of our being and attacked them. War, to put it simply, is a physical attack on culture.

An alternate definition for war could be "an all-pervasive phenomenon of the universe", in which it is in human nature to be belligerent. Immanual Kant theorized that war was not just an extended battle and kings screaming "We detest thee!" at each other across wheat fields, but as a means to a more perfect end. Nature uses man's antagonism as a means of discovering a state of calm and security. Eventually, there will be so many wars that a permanent peace would be erected, or so he said at the time. Georg Wilhelm Frederic Hegel, more of a realistic philosopher, believed that war would always exist because it is human nature. Whatever the case may be, war, for the moment, is something that is inevitable. There are too many greedy and power-hungry people in this world to even begin to think about peace.

Bibliography

"Commentary: Kant, Hegel and Deleuze on War." Why War? Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.why-war.com/commentary/2004/12/kant_hegel_deleuze_war.html

"Human Stabbed a Neanderthal, Evidence Suggests | LiveScience." LiveScience | Science, Technology, Health & Environmental News. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.livescience.com/history/090721-neanderthal-murder.html

"War -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/635532/war

"War, The Philosophy of [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [IEP]. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.iep.utm.edu/war/

"War: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com." Answers.com - Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia and much more. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.answers.com/topic/war

"Winning the ultimate battle: How humans could end war - science-in-society - 07 July 2009 - New Scientist." Science news and science jobs from New Scientist - New Scientist. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.500-winning-the-ultimate-battle-how-humans-could-end-war.html?full=true#bx271515B1

War, yo.

To begin to define precisely what war actually is, one has to consider the many different components that make up a war. For one thing, there has to be armed conflict for a situation to be considered war. This does not mean that the armed conflict has to involve the international community; war can be internal as well. Two groups disagreeing on something like a particular plot of land, however, does not amount to a war unless a distinct level of violence has been reached. Aggression between two people is not war, and neither is a brutal fight between two neighborhoods. Organized violence at a larger scale, on the other hand, like between the Chadian government and rebel groups in the nation, is regarded as a true war. As Brian Orend from Stanford University said, “The conflict of arms must be actual, and not merely latent, for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be both intentional and widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war. The onset of war requires a conscious commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until the fighters intend to go to war and until they do so with a heavy quantum of force”. In my opinion, something like the Cold War does not truly fall under the definition of term because there was never a violent clash between the military forces of the USSR and the US. If the two nations had actually used warfare against each other instead of just engaging in an arms race then the Cold War would have been quite appropriately named this.
Another part of the definition of war that is often debated is whether or not fighting against an idea constitutes as war. This has lead to the overuse of the term to describe issues that are not actually wars. To my knowledge, a war cannot just be fought against an idea; there has to be at least two opposing sides engaged in armed conflict. One example of the term being misused was when Lyndon Johnson coined the phrase “the War on Poverty” during his State of the Union address. Though poverty was a major issue that Johnson wanted to conquer, this was not, under any circumstances, a war. Proclaiming the struggle to solve the issue of poverty in the US a war puts it on the same level as a conflict where actual warfare is used and people are brutally killed by the hundreds, sometimes thousands. Fighting against an idea, especially without the use of force, should not be considered war in the first place. War does not have to be fought between two states, but it does have to be between two separate groups of people at the least.

Sources:
http://lawofwar.org/introduction.htm#Distinctions
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/

War

The answer to the question "What is war?" depends on who is answering the question. To some people small conflicts or disagreements can be defined as war as where others only define war as being full fledged military battles between two or more opposing sides. When looking up the definition of war, Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines it as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations" According to this definition any armed conflict between to entities can be considered war yet conflicts such as Vietnam where thousands of people lost their lives, was never technically considered a war. Does this mean though that by the definition any minor or major conflict in which violence occurs constitutes as war? For these reasons putting a simple definition on the term is challenging and varies from different perspectives. Currently

However was isn't just fighting with weapons and judged by whoever kills more people. In some cases war can be fought indirectly with the most prevalent example being the Cold War between the Untied States and The Soviet Union. Throughout the course of this "war" neither side engaged in any direct conflict yet this was considered a war by many. This war was fought with threats of nuclear proliferation, humiliation, propaganda and the use of embargoes and blockades. The cause for this war was the clash between capitalism and communism which also gives a good example of a war being fought against an idea or belief.

A more modern example today would be the "war on terror" This war which was announced by President George Bush in 2001 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The purpose was to locate, stop, and defeat all terrorists, and terrorist organizations. Today we still have troops stationed in Afghanistan working to meet these goals. This war though was not waged against the country of Afghanistan but rather the non-state entity being the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This has been ongoing now for 8 years and it appears as though little progress has been made.

The truth is that as long as people view ideas and concepts differently, there will always be conflict and there will always be war. Through thousands of years of human existence, war has been the process by which groups of people settle their problems and resolve issues and this will remain until a new effective way can be found.

Works Cited

"BBC - History - Cold War." BBC - Homepage. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. .

"CNN.com Specials." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. .

What is War?

What is war? War is defined on Dictionary.com as a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation. For as long as we have been a species, wars have been fought, won and recorded in the histories as we read about them today. There have been many different wars, and different types of wars. Our government has taken it upon themselves to label our altercations as "wars" or "conflicts" depending on the circumstances. Officially, World War II was the last "war" we took part in, but the term is used for other military events since then.

Since then, we have been involved in several military operations, including Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf Wars, and Iraq/Afghanistan. None of these are labeled by the government as a "war", but they do have many of the characteristics of a war. People still disagree over whether a conflict was a "war". Many people consider Vietnam a "war", but many refer to it as a "conflict". Not all violent conflicts can be called a war. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia in 1993 ended very violently, yet is was not a war. Over 100 UN and US Army casualties were suffered, making it the bloodiest battle since Vietnam, but it wasn't a war. It was an isolated event, which, even though the US suffered losses, could not be called a war.

Wars do have have to violent though. Even though it would seem they have to, they can be fought without bullets. The most prevalent example is the Cold War. There was not a shot fired the entire 20+ it was happening, yet it was one of the most intense, frightening conflicts in recent history. The threats between the US and USSR of nuclear war and the Cuban Missile Crisis came very close to violence, but thankfully a nuclear holocaust was averted. This conflict is a prime example that not all wars must be violent and can be fought with words and pictures.

Wars can also be fought against an idea or ideal. Many of our past wars have been fought against an idea. The Civil War was fought over states rights, which is an idea. One of the most destructive and bloody wars in our history was fought over an idea. Ideas can be extremely powerful and very important to many people, as evidenced by The Civil War.

War is a very hard thing to define. We have so many examples but still fail to capture the exact circumstances and numbers that can be described as a "war". Conflict is the human nature, and we are doomed to it.


http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/Somalia93/Somalia93.html
http://warincontext.org/2009/01/05/editorial-wars-against-ideas-always-fail/

This is war

When asked what is war, you immediately think, "Hey, this is an easy question to answer." Once you begin to actually try to answer it, it is hard for a concise definition. Short and sweet, war is the fighting between two or more groups over something they do not agree on, but war is much more than that. Contrary to most people's belief, not every conflict is in fact a war. Technically speaking, America has not been at war since World War Two. Vietnam, Iraq, Desert Storm, and today's Afghanistan were all either operations or conflicts, not full fledged war. You most certainly can have violent conflicts without an actual war, though almost always revenge is extracted or some form of fighting occurs.

What makes a war is different views on things. The most common fighting throughout history has been over differing religions, territorial battles, fighting for land, natural resources, and America's favorite, not agreeing with other governments. From trying to put down communism for almost all of the 20th century, to forcing democracy onto Iraq this century, America is notorious for believing that it's governent is the best government. Though I do not disagree that democracy is best, America has stuck it's nose into conflicts it should not have, leading to intense fighting, with Vietnam and the long slightly dull Cold War.

I firmly believe that war is sometimes necessary, and do not see possible "giving peace a chance" in every single aspect of the World. If something is seriously wrong and disrupting your livlihood, you fight back. Did our forefathers give peace a chance when they fought for our countries freedom against Britain? No, they fought back, and revolted, something that sometimes is necessary. Though some wars are in fact needed and have a postive after effect, I do believe sometimes we must look towards peace. War is really not needed between African people, and we should promote and try to strike peace between them. Genocides are horrific, yet all to familiar. To conclude, war is a sometimes necessary fighting between two or more groups with differing views on some matter.

Adam Stefanik
Sources
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/whatiswar.htm
http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/
my prior schooling

What is War?

Dictionary.com defines war as, “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.” Simply put, that IS war. Battles in war can even be amazingly unpredicted. For example, the War of 1812, which was fought over the course of about three years, was fought between the British and the Americans. The Americans only had 12 frigates, whereas the British had about 400. Any ship-to-ship battle nearly always resulted in American victory. Even though the Americans seemed like the underdogs, they were able to hold up and fight and win. War doesn’t always mean the bigger, stronger force comes out on top.

It is untrue that all violent conflicts amount to war, because violent conflicts can occur on a smaller scale that could end up getting resolved in ways other than armed fights. Stereotypical wars where one would think of fully equipped fighters obviously cannot be fought without direct contact. Considering that the definition of war states that the battle is fought with arms, to have a war wouldn't that mean there must be direct contact? It is certainly possible that a war could have catalyzed over an idea, though I have not been able to research any occurance that supports that, so I hypothesize it could but hasn't. However, I can't really give any definite answer. War fought in direct contact is happening currently. The most popular definition of war to our generation is the war in Iraq. There are constantly new articles being posted about updates on the war, that it was hard to choose one. However, I found some on CNN dating back to 2003, when Bush was the president. "We pledge that we will confront the invaders," Bush said in the article about the U.S. launching cruise missiles at Saddam. Confronting the invaders is an exact example of what one would consider direct contact.

So when we were younger and being taught about the world, the infamous phrase used is usually something along the lines of, "Everyone is different, not one person anywhere else in the world is exactly the same as you." If this is so true, not everyone will ever agree on the same things, and no one will ever have the same beliefs of opinions as another. Even though war is ridiculously dangerous, expensive, and creates uproar in the lives of many innocent people, it has become something that, basically, must be accepted. War has been a part of life on earth for many, many years, and will continue to be, especially now that technology is becoming much more advanced. There are plenty of people who will disagree, but to me, war is inevitable.



“U.S. launching cruise missiles at Saddam “ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/19/sprj.irq.main/
“The War of 1812; What and Why?” http://www.angelfire.com/fl2/htf/1812historydir/warof1812.html

What is war?

Why has there been so much war throughout human history?

Just like animals, humans have an instinct to survive and are willing to fight if their life is threatened. It can also be proven that some humans are naturally aggressive and may fight for competition or power. Conflicting ideas and opinions between human beings create an umbra of disagreements which inevitably lead to war. These wars don't always have to be fought violently with weapons since wars can be fought with words instead, but most wars do involve violent fighting because it has proven to be... "more effective". By saying "more effective", I mean that if one side of a war doesn't promote physical violence while the other side does, those who aren't going to fight back obviously won't survive as long as the physical and competitive side. For example, a soft and fuzzy bunny is not going to fare well against a vicious lion with a lust for the blood of the bunny, and this is why humans tend to be aggressive toward each other -- ultimately resulting in the outcome of war throughout their history. Another factor that feeds into human aggression is a feud, or permanent war which can last for centuries. In feuds, each entity involved follows the rule of "an eye for an eye", and every act of killing requires a retaliation of killing. You can see how this type of fighting would cause many wars throughout human history due to its see-saw balancing of retaliated attacks. Any war with direct actions is called a "hot" war, and any war without direct actions is called a "cold" war. To describe a cold war, it's best to look at the two superpowers of Russia and the United States. While the United States was in Vietnam, Russia supplied the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong with arms such as the infamous AK-47 and RPG. Hence, the action is not directly taken by Russia so it is labeled a cold war. Cold wars are generally fought due to fear of the retaliation of the other side if there were to be direct contact with that enemy on a battlefield.

What is war?

It may sound very pessimistic of me to say, but war is the only option for humans when large conflicts arise. It's highly unlikely that we will ever see the day when two beings of rivalry will ever shake hands and pronounce peace because peace is much more complex than war. To describe exactly what war is, I'd like to refer to a quote by Thomas Mann -- "War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace". The problems of peace will always be present due to natural human aggressiveness and willingness to avenge or defend their beliefs. It's quite ironic that old politicians used to use the saying Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori to convince young men to enlist and fight for their country. Even if it is "Sweet and Honorable to die for the fatherland", I don't believe that these politicians even needed to employ the saying because a human's existing willingness to survive will more than likely always prevail. In the end war is inevitable for the "civilized" human race. Besides technology and some physical capabilities, how different are we from animals?

Works Cited:

Nouri Arif, . "Why humans fight each other." Helium. Web. 17 Sep 2009. http://www.helium.com/items/401442-why-humans-fight-each-other.

In response to Dave Carter

I'm so glad that you chose the United States government as the world's most dangerous entity and the President being the world's most dangerous leader. I agree with your statement, because for someone to be "dangerous", they don't have to have a past record of human rights violations... they just need the potential resources to enact and enforce. And it's sure that no one will disagree with the statement that the United States of America has the most supported and strengthened military force. The American ideals include an overzealous intention to care for people and try to fix things in other countries, so our military has been sent all over the world in the past century all in attempt to create peace and fix problems. However, we must look at the deconstruction we cause in each country and weigh that with the outcome we cause. In Iraq, there is a large number of innocent civilians who have been displaced or killed unintentionally by this dangerous American entity invading their country. Perhaps the American military forces are an asset the government uses to form the world as they would like it to be. There is nothing more dangerous than the minds of men in power when they have the "biggest gun" in the international community. Just remember that we may see ourselves as liberators but those directly affected by America's relentless wars may often see us as conquerors.

Response to Nicks post

I definitely agree with you that Ahmadinejad is the most dangerous leader in the world today. He has said that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" which is a very harsh thing to say, and a very scary thing coming from someone with nuclear weapons. This is, in fact, one of the things that makes him so dangerous. He has been, and still is, in direct violation of UN Resolution 11737, which calls for a halt of his uranium enrichment program. Even though harsh sanctions, including an embargo, travel restrictions and restriction on Iranian financial institutions have been carried out on Iran, he still refuses to respect the resolution. He insists that he is using the process for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, but reports from the International Atomic Energy Association state that the amount of highly enriched uranium Iran is producing is enough to arm missiles. Any country who possesses nuclear weapons, ignores UN resolutions and has publicly threatened to blow Israel off the map should be considered a very big threat to the international community.

Response to David Hussong

I could not agree more that Kim Jong-Il is the most dangerous leader in the entire world at the moment. North Korea is a dangerous country in its ownright, and are led by an ever more dangerous man. No other country in the world makes you fear weapons of mass destruction like North Korea. According to a report from September 13th, Jong Il is planning to have his third nuclear test with the use of enriched uranium. Jong Il also refuses to speak to the US and other neighboring countries about his actions, leaving us guessing and worried at what he may do. This man is capable of launching missiles, and is the most likely candidate to do so of every world leader, with abundant resources and the technology of nuclear power. Though other leaders around the world may be more hostile, such as Hugo Chavez, Jong Il is the most dangerous if he were ever to take it to the next level. No one else poses such a threat of weapons of mass destruction, and nothing in the world is more dangerous than them. Even though it is such a slight, small chance he ever uses them, the threat that he could potentially makes he the most dangerous person ruling a country. North Korea will never flourish under his rule, and we should all hope no one ever sets him off to launch missiles.

War, What is it Good For?

Caitlin Coyle, a former student, suggested I ask "What is War?" as a topic for our Blog discussion. In answering the question, you may consider the following: do all violent conflicts consititute wars? Can you have a war without direct conflict? Can war be fought against an idea or a non-state entity? Use one historical and one contemporary example to support your response.

In response to Jonathan Johnson:

The claims you made on your most recent post concerning "MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD" are not only incorrect, but written in a demeaning and condescending tone. It's unfair to degrade someone as you have, simply because you do not share the same views as them. After reading your post, I researched Ahmadinejad and found his blog. Although I do not consider myself a strong supporter of Iran in any way, I still found the site intriguing. On this website, Ahmadinejad addresses the world through posts that are well written and positive in nature. There are comments written from people all over the world, including the United States. In your post, you wrote that he "denounced everything that we stood for". On Ahmadinejad's blog, there are multiple posts submitted by American citizens. One in particular reads, "Your one of the most stupid president ever ! Im sure about half of the comments posted of this blog are just totally fake and used as propaganda." Another, just as eloquently written, states, "die slow ...". These comments further prove the point I'm trying to make: just because his views and politics are not something you agree with, there is absolutely no reason to tell him to "die slow[ly]". The comments made by Americans on this blog are far more violent than anything written by the "Dictator Wannabe" as you so kindly called him. This gives the impression that America is standing for hate and discrimination, not freedom and justice, as I believe you intended.               

Also, the majority of other countries do not support the existence of Israel. Many view their flagrant disrespect towards the Palestinian people as inhumane. Aside from the United States and a few others, most others do not support them. In fact, the only Arab nations that even recognize Israel's existence are Jordan and Egypt, and that is only because they were coerced by the United States. Because of this, Iran's refusal to recognize Israel is not surprising.

Your complete and utter lack of respect for another human being, who you've never even met, amazes me.

On a side note, if anyone else wants to read Ahmadinejad’s blog, here’s the link: http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/    It's great :)

Ahmadinejad

In my opinion, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran is the single most dangerous leader in the world. There are many reasons why I believe Ahmadinejad is the most dangerous leader in the world. One reason is the fact that Ahmadinejad is a member of the Islamic Students Association. The ISA is most well known for being the militant group that took over the U.S. embassy in Iran in 1979. This gives evidence that Ahmadinejad is willing to attack Americans and has done so in the past. Five U.S. prisoners even said that Ahmadinejad was their captor when they were being held captive.

Another factor that makes Ahmadinejad the most dangerous leader is the fact that he has refused to listen to the United Nations when asked to relinquish his quest for nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad has never been a fan of the United States and if he were to develop nuclear weapons he would certainly not hesitate to strike America. Also, if Ahmadinejad were to gain a nuclear warhead it is quite possible that he would sell the technology to different terrorists groups. It is widely known that he supports the Shiite Hezbollah group. Hezbollah is recognized terrorist group operating in Lebanon and it is speculated that Hezbollah has had contact with al-Qaeda. It is also widely believed that he has sent thousands of Iranian soldiers into Iraq who smuggles in arms and helped plot bombings and attacks on American troops. In addition, Ahmadinejad was a member of the infamous Qods Force, a part of the Iranian army that forcefully spread the Ayatollah’s “vision of a new Islamic world”[1]

Ahmadinejad is also not just a threat to America but also to the rest of the world because he is simply crazy. For years, he has talked about wanting to wipe both America and Israel off the face of the Earth. He has also refused to accept the fact that the Holocaust was an actual event that killed millions of people. The fact that he thinks it’s ok to merely blow a country off the Earth and to not face the actuality of the Holocaust being real shows that he is truly mentally insane.

[1] "World's Most Dangerous Leaders : Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran Your America Reader's Digest." Funny Jokes, Cartoons, Magazine Articles & Inspiring Stories Reader's Digest. Web. 09 Sept. 2009. .

Hugo Chavez- Melissa Incera

In my opinion, Hugo Chavez is currently the most dangerous leader in the world. He came into power as president of Venezuela in 1998, and has set himself a rather active agenda that he is avid to complete. His power in Venezuela alone is enough to compete with the big players in today’s world. He has complete control over the judicial system, Parliament and trade. His true danger lies in the resources he has in his possession. Venezuela provides a good deal of oil, not just to the US but around the world. In fact, the United States consumes 50% of Venezuelan oil. If this was to get cut off, the United States, in particular would suffer a great deal. Chavez has also made some valuable, but dangerous friends in the international world. Fidel Castro, Sandinista Daniel Ortega and Evo Morales of Bolivia are the most prominent of his Latin American allies. His assistance in helping them to gain power has indebted them to him, and they happen to share a lot of the same ideologies including a hatred of America. He has also demonstrated his loyalty to Bashar al-Assad and his support for Hamas, a group involved in terrorist actions in Isreal. New ties with North Korea have also been recently developed keeping him in touch with Kim Jung Il, who as the world knows, has nuclear weapons readily available. Most important are his ties with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his promise “to stand by Iran anytime and under any condition”. He is characterized by his hatred of the United States. After George Bush made a statement at a UN General Assembly meeting he proclaimed the next day, “the devil came here.” He has reinforced this passion by his selection in other anti-American allies. His influence in the Latin American countries especially only fuels these un-American sentiments and hatreds. Though he does not have nuclear weapons in his possession as far as the world knows, his selection of allies would ensure that he could rely on assistance if he ever decided to front a true attack. Though it seems he seems to be a threat only to American interests; that is not the case. If Chavez were to initiate an attack or to prevent oil from getting to the US, many more countries would soon be involved. This would bring very dangerous players into the game, such as Iran and North Korea and others still would rise to the US’s defense. Chavez has no intentions of giving up his power in Venezuela. If all continues as it has been, Chavez could rule the country as long as he pleases. This would allow for even more dangerous connections and resources to be acquired.

Works Cited
"World's Most Dangerous Leaders : Hugo Chávez Your America Reader's Digest." Readers Digest. Web. 11 Sept. 2009. .

Hugo Chavez: by Jenna Boucher

I believe that Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, is the most dangerous leader in the world. He owns one of the largest oil companies in the world, making him wealthy beyond imaginable. This gave him power over Venezuelan parliament, the court system, trade unions, and electoral commissions, according to The Washington Post. In a nutshell, Chávez controls all governing powers in Venezuela. Yet it is questionable whether Chávez will soon limit non-governmental funding because of his wealthy investment in the oil industry. By doing this, he will have ultimate power over his entire country.
Chávez has also signed an arms deal with Russia, meaning Russia will gladly supply Venezuela with weaponry when need be, despite the ruing of the United States. It is also said that fighter jets and helicopters are also being provided for Venezuela, creating a closer military bond between the two countries. Chávez is also a fan of former Cuban president Fidel Castro and has close ties with Bolivia’s Evo Morales, both considered being dangerous leaders. It can be assumed that admiring dangerous people can only mean that you are dangerous yourself. It is also said that Chávez is known to have a personal relationship with Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Hoesini-Khamenel.
Back in 1992, Chávez let his anger get the best of him when previous President Carlos Andres Perez tried to take a hold on Venezuela’s economic measures. Chávez aggressively tried to overthrow the government when he thought the president wasn’t handling things properly. Another decade before this incident, Chávez secretly formed a Bolivian movement, called the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement, with his former military officers who revolted against the government; killing 18 and injuring 60 civilians before Chávez finally turned himself in. He spent two years in jail; meanwhile his associates were still attempting to seize power.
During Chávez’ presidency, he was successful in passing the referendum law, meaning that any president can run for election as many times as they’d like. Of course, Chávez plans on ruling Venezuela longer than his current end of term, which is in 2012. Virtually, Chávez can have a never-ending presidency. According to BBC News, he stated that “he needs another 10 years for…Venezuela’s socialist revolution to take place.” His oil exportation to Iran is a way of following up with his plan for socialism in Venezuela. Once again, easy access to exports around the world means there is potential to create harm.
Chávez has also made multiple comments and performed actions to upset the United States government. He claims that the US failed to back up his oust in 2002 when he attempted an abortive coup. Chávez also stated that Bush was “fighting terror with terror” after the September 11 attack and we deployed troops in Afghanistan. He also ignored the United States comment that it was not a good idea to sign the arms deal with Russia, since it might have put other South American countries on edge, and throw off the Venezuelan economy. A second time he called Bush “the devil” while speaking to the United Nations General Assembly.

Work Cited

"Chavez hails Russian arms deal." BBC News. 27 July 2006. Web. 8 Sept. 2009. .
Fukuyama, Francis. "History's Against Him." The Washington Post. 6 Aug. 2006. Web. 8 Sept. 2009. .

Hi All!

Hi all!

This is Caitlin Coyle from last year's IR class. Yes, I'm haunting you post-Woodstock Academy. I'm at American University right now (just got out of macroeconomics actually, I hate that class) and joining the MUN team here. 

Just wanted to let you know that I'm completely willing to help out anyone if they have questions about IR, MUN, or college in general. Seniors! Consider American!!! It has a great IR program, but I can also turn you on to other schools with IR programs as well. You're all invited to visit me if you would like. 

Good luck this year! IR changed my life (and my intended major). Take advantage of it. 

Love,

Caitlin

PS: I promise there will be no crying breakdowns from me anymore =] 

Test

Mrs. Field is a super mega awesome good teacher.

In your opinion, who is the most dangerous leader in the world? Please defend your answer using evidence from at least two reliable sources.

hello :]

Katz

Roolz!