Tony S. President Obama addressed the problem of ISIL. They are a terrorists organization that worked with AL-Qaeda during their regime. Since Al-Qaeda has fallen ISIL has moved up in power. They are known for being more ruthless and sinister in the way they carry out their attacks. The problem this organization poses is the fact that they're spreading and stalling Iraq's growth. They are known to be in Iraq and Syria as well as speculated being in other places of the world. The immediate threat they pose towards America has been demonstrated already. They has captured and executed 2 american reporters already. The long- term problem they pose is if they spread, they can gain access to America. If we were to look at ISIL and their actions in a conflict perspective, we would see that they are a serious threat to our way of life, our security, our lives, and possibly our government. Their main mission is to get as many people under their control as possible and killing whoever will not convert. A functionalists would look at this and say that they are serving as a function for war, generate jobs (i.e. weapon makers, bomb makers, jet production, pilots, fuel distribution) and to exercise our military's actions. Although they are not a military opposition, we would use our military to attack them. This would demonstrate if our military leaders as well as our pilots are up to par in their individual fields. War creates jobs which in turn generate money into our economy. A functionalists would also say that ISIL is serving as a small form of population control. Our planet simply has too many people on it today. By them carrying out these mass murders and being killed themselves is a way of controlling the population. I commented on this post because I was in the Army and went to Iraq twice. I do feel that we are doing the right thing by stepping in to help the innocent people of Iraq and Syria. I feel that President Obama is taking the best route of action. Helping innocent people by targeting ISIL with air strikes, but not limiting the risk of American casualties by not putting troops on the ground. Air strikes are extremely proficient, accurate, and pose a very slight chance of American casualties compared to ground troops. By President Obama taking this route, he is ensuring that there will be the least amount of civilian casualties as well as American casualties. ISIL is a problem to the world internationally, and they need to be stopped.
Yangil Y. Political terrorism expert Grant Wardlaw stated “Terrorism is a phenomenon that is increasingly coming to dominate our lives” (as cited in Leon-Guerrero, 2014, p. 428). As we’ve already experienced, wars on it, such as counter-terrorism attack on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or war against Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghanistan (2003- ) has influenced many aspects of our political, economic, and social lives. The governmental power shifts from non-security and social services to security and intelligence gathering, which can deteriorate citizen’s rights and cause domestic conflicts about the immense expenditures on the war, while the budget for social security, welfare, and public education are dwindling. Moreover, it causes changes to the perspectives of people on the political figures or Parties that are for or against the war, and therefore, it may affect the result of general election and the power dynamics within the Congress. War on terrorism changes our daily life styles and results in political, economic power shift, domestically or internationally. Obama administration proclaimed a war against terrorism which is prevailed in the area of Middle East, especially Iraq and Syria to degrade and ultimately destroy Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy. President Obama made it cleared that what the objectives of this war are: first, humanitarian intervention; second, military support which reinforces Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment, as well as Syria opposition force; Third, political support which means supporting effective governance in Iraq. However, he didn’t expressed how much money we need to wage this war, which amount to $5 billion of Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF) (the White House, 2014). Conflict theorists argued that war is a profitable business, and corporate profit and politics drive each other to maximize the profit of war economy and enhance their power. They would criticize that this war will benefit the Democratic Party in the upcoming general election and reinforce military-industrial complex by extracting $5 billion from budget otherwise used to fund social service and education. Military officials, defense contractors, and political leaders forming “the power elite” work together to enhance their political power and financial profits. As “a ruling class,” they control society and work for their own interests, not for the interests of the citizenry. The “iron triangle” or “the circulation of the elites” in powerful offices creates this secret relationship that helps ensure their dominance over American life. Also, conflict theorists would see this war as another sign of Imperialism or Neocolonialism. The use of military power, economic aid, and political support is to extend America’s influence and control over the Middle East countries. Terrorism is one of the most ferocious, atrocious, and harmful methods for a regional or religious, or ethnic/racial group to gain political power. ISIS’s bombings, assassinations, armed assaults, kidnapping, hijacking and hostage seizures are associated with the “Genocide” and “Politicide” (Leon-Guerrero, 2014, p. 426). However, foreign policy needs more considerate and precautious steps before waging a war against this terrorists or terrorism because it affects domestic affairs and people’s lives as well. For example, Leon-Guerrero stated, “Based on its 2008 budget, the Bush administration proposed cutting $13 billion from social service and education programming . . . , at the same time, the administration requested an additional $100 billion for war-related spending” (p.435). I believe those objectives in this war, which said above, can be achieved with plausible alternatives: Humanitarian support, military supports, and Iraqi government’s governance all can be operated through the U.N. In addition, domestic security against external threats can be protected by various intelligence agencies and existing laws as well as multinational collaboration.
I will take a symbolic interactioist perspective on this topic. The United States has had a rather rebellious history as it was born out of a revolutionary war and against one of the biggest powers at the time, Great Britain. Young students are often taught about the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence in a way that overglorifies the founding of our country, creating a sense of what I refer to as blind nationalism. Blind nationalism is when a population within a country is so patriotic that they ignore the fact that their government or themselves are breaking cultural values by being "blinded" by their extreme nationalism. This blind nationalism creates the illusion that we are the police of the world and that it is our duty to save it, even if it causes trouble in the future. The conflict in the middle east is justified by politicians by relying on our blind nationalism, the thought that we are "saving the world" makes us feel okay about all of this. It justifies what Obama and his administration is conducting in the middle east. Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi Party during the second World War said that if you keep repeating a lie, people will eventually believe it. This is partially true with the American mentality at the current moment but there are elements that Goebbels left out. In elementary school, kids are taught to associate bravery and patriotism with The United States. They associate the United States' flag with patriotism through the Pledge of Allegiance. This patriotism and being taught our history in a glorified way makes us desensitized to war and violence. Personally, I think that Obama should take a less violent approach. I think that the millennial generation is more concerned and self aware about what is going on than previous generations and that this approach is too violent. I'm complete honesty it scares me a little that a lot of Americans tolerate this level of violence. That's not to say the millennial generation can't handle violence, the sales of violent videogames show that to be true. It just seem this generation is more aware and against real world violence than previous ones. If I were to solve this problem I would do what our country has done and create change through the children by giving education centers a hidden curriculum. Make them learn that terrorism is bad and allow them to achieve a higher job status to stay out of terrorism related activities.
Anonymous said... Laleh K. President Obama's recent speech about ISIS and addressing them as a threat to US and a possible war is exactly what these ruthless, fanatic, crazy people want, to be recognised as a major a threat to US, to be magnified in the eyes of the world as a very powerful group. The fact that US is tackling this serious, major issue by gathering support from it's allies first, is politically a very smart move. From a Functionalist point of view, this would be a global security issue and it should be in most civilised nations interest to be tackled and supported by all the allies not only in Western countries but even more important from Middle east especially when it comes to gentle subject of religion. All nations should take their responsibilities and act accordingly so at the end of the day there is a, All for one Not one for all. ( meaning US take the initiative and helping and supporting the innocent people and yet be always the one to blame for war). From my point of view it should be a committed and gathered battle by all parties and US should not forget their previous lessons of longterm damages to families (psychologically) lost of innocent lives and cost to the Society. A better solution would be to invest those funds for better health care, Educational system, better welfare system for it's citizen instead of investing them totally on war/Army and huge cost of future damages and last but not least create future resentment and hostilities towards it's citizen.
Anthony M. The ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is a terrorist organization that is currently threatening the well being and safety of people in the Middle East. This is a problem on a global scale. This terrorist organization that kills people on a daily basis shows no mercy to the innocent and defenseless citizens of Iraq. What sounds very illogical is a claimed organization of Islam and the Muslim religion is killing not only innocent people but is also murdering practitioners of the Islam religion. This Terrorist group posses a serious threat to not only America but to the entire world because of there relentless acts towards the people of the Islamic nation and religiously inferior. Murdering the innocent, beheading children in Iraq and publicly murdering American journalists (while threatening) are all acts of terrorism that will not stop unless someone stops this.
As a Functionalist I would say that the ISIL group is shrinking the population that is growing at a faster rate than it is dying. Sending American troops to supply local forces with information, different training, different ways of approaching the enemy, and different ways of strategizing can help in the advancement of not only our own military but other local militaries in the Iraqi region so they can learn to defend themselves rather than other nations. War can also function as a way of creating peace by eliminating people who are not peaceful and want to continue to harm and kill one another. Coordinated airstrikes will serve as a way to diminish the ISIL's forces in numbers bit by bit. And also save lives of American troops who would be at risk if fighting a combat mission
I chose to comment on this post because it is important to remember that there is evil out there that wants to take over the world. Remember Hitler? And how literally the entire world sat back and pretty much gave him all that power and look what happened. Hitler came so close to conquering all of Europe and the world. And in a sense the ISIL is doing what Hitler was doing, killing anyone and everyone who was inferior in anyway to them. I believe that coordinated airstrikes are good solutions to this issue and the positive side of this is that no more American lives will be lost in the process making this solution a more effective and a better solution
Susanna J Obama is addressing the ISIL situation basically saying he has decided to act against them and is asking congress for support. Troops are being sent but not for war but to talk with leaders and campaign for support together. Iraq has now formed a government and is working with troops to aid in assistance to intelligence, training, and equipment. ISIL is not like any other terrorism we had so far they consider themselves and Islamic state but are not they have taken advantages of country's in war and seize the opportunity to gain power they record there massacres they kill children capture and torture prisoners and record they recently killed two American journalist putting the video on the web we are there next target Obama says his been trying to control the situation by sending air strike missiles Obama says his core principal will be " if you threaten America there will be no safe heaven for you". Functionalist perspective on this situation might be what does the country as a whole think for what's best for the United States of America are we just aiding and taking precautions or will this be another full on war. I just think as a society we don't want to go to war and deploy the soldiers that are just coming home be sent out for another five - ten years. In my opinion it's scary to think of another war breaking out but we do need to protect America so it's hard decision to say where am I at wars cost trillions of dollars and many lives. Maybe a solution for right now would be just to monitor the situation work with other states to prepare them if anything happens but not to take any drastic action just yet.
I completely agree with your response it was kind of what I was aiming towards in my blog entry I agree that it's smart that we are trying to seek health from allies as well as agreeing on we shouldn't focus so quickly on going to war instead of giving out weapons and sending out troops we should help feed the poor or get better health care there soon many other problems we have going on as well.
Commenting on Evan W I've never looked at a symbolic perspective but we are a blind nation that gets to be to patriotic we always want to be on top we always want to be the best that one action affects all of the nation . Taking a political science class I learned of the reason we went to war because they suspected they had nuclear weapons and it turns out it was a mistake and by the time it was time to say something it was already to late the decision to go to war was already made by the time the evidence showed there was nothing and yet we wasted millions of dollars and killed innocent people. We need to focus on other things besides war and think of other alternatives or just move to the side for a bit.
Vaheh M. ISIL is a terrorist organization with hopes of erasing the borders in the Middle East and restoring a form of government that has been eradicated for about 100 years. ISIL is barbaric, using coercion and extreme violence to get rid of anyone who stands in the way of their goals, including women and children. To the people who they now "govern," freedoms that they once enjoyed are now limited to a major degree, and women's rights are degrading. Not only are the minorities suffering at their hands, those who practice the Muslim religion are under threat as well. Although, for now, the problem is located mainly in the Middle East, the issue is a global one. In my opinion, a peaceful resolution can solve most problems in the world, but this is a major exception. If Obama wanted to use violence against them without the aid or consent of any other states in the world, I would be reluctantly supportive, but the fact remains that many other countries are against ISIL, and are planning to use force and violence against the organization. This, in my opinion, is the best way to go about it. A peaceful resolution to an organization who uses violence as the main method to get what they want is to use violence to annihilate them. A conflict theorist would view this as a power trying to gain power via threats, coercion and violence, another group struggling to maintain its power, and a bunch of other states, seeing a fairly big threat to security, using their power to make sure the first group fails. It is, pure and simple, a struggle for power and control.
Lida G. commenting on Vaheh M. I agree with Vaheh. ISIL is a terrorist organization with hopes of erasing the borders in the Middle East and restoring a form of government that has been eradicated for 100 years. Many countries are against ISIL.We need peace in this world. Funtionalism, war and terrorism serve several important functions. They increase social solidarity as a society unites to defeat a perceived enemy.
Susanna J Commenting on Vahen M I agree with your conflict theory perspective I agree that we are just trying to control the situation and yes we are trying to maintain power but I feel we can still have power by trying to defuse the situation by not just getting right into another situation we are barely trying to finish bringing back all troops from Iraq and they are already getting pulled and sent off not to war quite yet but to go train and supply them with weapons so by the time they come back were off to war. I also liked her summary on the Isis as well as her perspective on peace but for now we can not just rely on peace we have to be ready for any threats to the U.S..What stood out is her position on peace but her alternative to we can no longer just sit back.
11 comments:
Tony S.
President Obama addressed the problem of ISIL. They are a terrorists organization that worked with AL-Qaeda during their regime. Since Al-Qaeda has fallen ISIL has moved up in power. They are known for being more ruthless and sinister in the way they carry out their attacks. The problem this organization poses is the fact that they're spreading and stalling Iraq's growth. They are known to be in Iraq and Syria as well as speculated being in other places of the world. The immediate threat they pose towards America has been demonstrated already. They has captured and executed 2 american reporters already. The long- term problem they pose is if they spread, they can gain access to America. If we were to look at ISIL and their actions in a conflict perspective, we would see that they are a serious threat to our way of life, our security, our lives, and possibly our government. Their main mission is to get as many people under their control as possible and killing whoever will not convert.
A functionalists would look at this and say that they are serving as a function for war, generate jobs (i.e. weapon makers, bomb makers, jet production, pilots, fuel distribution) and to exercise our military's actions. Although they are not a military opposition, we would use our military to attack them. This would demonstrate if our military leaders as well as our pilots are up to par in their individual fields. War creates jobs which in turn generate money into our economy. A functionalists would also say that ISIL is serving as a small form of population control. Our planet simply has too many people on it today. By them carrying out these mass murders and being killed themselves is a way of controlling the population.
I commented on this post because I was in the Army and went to Iraq twice. I do feel that we are doing the right thing by stepping in to help the innocent people of Iraq and Syria. I feel that President Obama is taking the best route of action. Helping innocent people by targeting ISIL with air strikes, but not limiting the risk of American casualties by not putting troops on the ground. Air strikes are extremely proficient, accurate, and pose a very slight chance of American casualties compared to ground troops. By President Obama taking this route, he is ensuring that there will be the least amount of civilian casualties as well as American casualties. ISIL is a problem to the world internationally, and they need to be stopped.
Yangil Y.
Political terrorism expert Grant Wardlaw stated “Terrorism is a phenomenon that is increasingly coming to dominate our lives” (as cited in Leon-Guerrero, 2014, p. 428). As we’ve already experienced, wars on it, such as counter-terrorism attack on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or war against Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghanistan (2003- ) has influenced many aspects of our political, economic, and social lives. The governmental power shifts from non-security and social services to security and intelligence gathering, which can deteriorate citizen’s rights and cause domestic conflicts about the immense expenditures on the war, while the budget for social security, welfare, and public education are dwindling. Moreover, it causes changes to the perspectives of people on the political figures or Parties that are for or against the war, and therefore, it may affect the result of general election and the power dynamics within the Congress. War on terrorism changes our daily life styles and results in political, economic power shift, domestically or internationally.
Obama administration proclaimed a war against terrorism which is prevailed in the area of Middle East, especially Iraq and Syria to degrade and ultimately destroy Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy. President Obama made it cleared that what the objectives of this war are: first, humanitarian intervention; second, military support which reinforces Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment, as well as Syria opposition force; Third, political support which means supporting effective governance in Iraq. However, he didn’t expressed how much money we need to wage this war, which amount to $5 billion of Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF) (the White House, 2014).
Conflict theorists argued that war is a profitable business, and corporate profit and politics drive each other to maximize the profit of war economy and enhance their power. They would criticize that this war will benefit the Democratic Party in the upcoming general election and reinforce military-industrial complex by extracting $5 billion from budget otherwise used to fund social service and education. Military officials, defense contractors, and political leaders forming “the power elite” work together to enhance their political power and financial profits. As “a ruling class,” they control society and work for their own interests, not for the interests of the citizenry. The “iron triangle” or “the circulation of the elites” in powerful offices creates this secret relationship that helps ensure their dominance over American life. Also, conflict theorists would see this war as another sign of Imperialism or Neocolonialism. The use of military power, economic aid, and political support is to extend America’s influence and control over the Middle East countries.
Terrorism is one of the most ferocious, atrocious, and harmful methods for a regional or religious, or ethnic/racial group to gain political power. ISIS’s bombings, assassinations, armed assaults, kidnapping, hijacking and hostage seizures are associated with the “Genocide” and “Politicide” (Leon-Guerrero, 2014, p. 426). However, foreign policy needs more considerate and precautious steps before waging a war against this terrorists or terrorism because it affects domestic affairs and people’s lives as well. For example, Leon-Guerrero stated, “Based on its 2008 budget, the Bush administration proposed cutting $13 billion from social service and education programming . . . , at the same time, the administration requested an additional $100 billion for war-related spending” (p.435). I believe those objectives in this war, which said above, can be achieved with plausible alternatives: Humanitarian support, military supports, and Iraqi government’s governance all can be operated through the U.N. In addition, domestic security against external threats can be protected by various intelligence agencies and existing laws as well as multinational collaboration.
I will take a symbolic interactioist perspective on this topic. The United States has had a rather rebellious history as it was born out of a revolutionary war and against one of the biggest powers at the time, Great Britain. Young students are often taught about the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence in a way that overglorifies the founding of our country, creating a sense of what I refer to as blind nationalism. Blind nationalism is when a population within a country is so patriotic that they ignore the fact that their government or themselves are breaking cultural values by being "blinded" by their extreme nationalism. This blind nationalism creates the illusion that we are the police of the world and that it is our duty to save it, even if it causes trouble in the future. The conflict in the middle east is justified by politicians by relying on our blind nationalism, the thought that we are "saving the world" makes us feel okay about all of this. It justifies what Obama and his administration is conducting in the middle east. Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi Party during the second World War said that if you keep repeating a lie, people will eventually believe it. This is partially true with the American mentality at the current moment but there are elements that Goebbels left out. In elementary school, kids are taught to associate bravery and patriotism with The United States. They associate the United States' flag with patriotism through the Pledge of Allegiance. This patriotism and
being taught our history in a glorified way makes us desensitized to war and violence. Personally, I think that Obama should take a less violent approach. I think that the millennial generation is more concerned and self aware about what is going on than previous generations and that this approach is too violent. I'm complete honesty it scares me a
little that a lot of Americans tolerate this level of violence. That's not to say the millennial generation can't handle violence, the sales of violent videogames show that to be true. It just seem this generation is more aware and against real world violence than previous ones. If I were to solve this problem I would do what our country has done and create change through the children by giving education centers a hidden curriculum. Make them learn that terrorism is bad and allow them to achieve a higher job status to stay out of terrorism related activities.
Anonymous said...
Laleh K.
President Obama's recent speech about ISIS and addressing them as a threat to US and a possible war is exactly what these ruthless, fanatic, crazy people want, to be recognised as a major a threat to US, to be magnified in the eyes of the world as a very powerful group. The fact that US is tackling this serious, major issue by gathering support from it's allies first, is politically a very smart move.
From a Functionalist point of view, this would be a global security issue and it should be in most civilised nations interest to be tackled and supported by all the allies not only in Western countries but even more important from Middle east especially when it comes to gentle subject of religion. All nations should take their responsibilities and act accordingly so at the end of the day there is a, All for one Not one for all. ( meaning US take the
initiative and helping and supporting the innocent people and yet be always the one to blame for war). From my point of view it should be a committed and gathered battle by all parties and US should not forget their previous lessons of longterm damages to families (psychologically) lost of innocent lives and cost to the Society. A better solution would be to invest those funds for better health care, Educational system, better welfare system for it's citizen instead of investing them totally on war/Army and huge cost of future damages and last but not least create future resentment and hostilities towards it's citizen.
Anthony M.
The ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is a terrorist organization that is currently threatening the well being and safety of people in the Middle East. This is a problem on a global scale. This terrorist organization that kills people on a daily basis shows no mercy to the innocent and defenseless citizens of Iraq. What sounds very illogical is a claimed organization of Islam and the Muslim religion is killing not only innocent people but is also murdering practitioners of the Islam religion. This Terrorist group posses a serious threat to not only America but to the entire world because of there relentless acts towards the people of the Islamic nation and religiously inferior. Murdering the innocent, beheading children in Iraq and publicly murdering American journalists (while threatening) are all acts of terrorism that will not stop unless someone stops this.
As a Functionalist I would say that the ISIL group is shrinking the population that is growing at a faster rate than it is dying. Sending American troops to supply local forces with information, different training, different ways of approaching the enemy, and different ways of strategizing can help in the advancement of not only our own military but other local militaries in the Iraqi region so they can learn to defend themselves rather than other nations. War can also function as a way of creating peace by eliminating people who are not peaceful and want to continue to harm and kill one another. Coordinated airstrikes will serve as a way to diminish the ISIL's forces in numbers bit by bit. And also save lives of American troops who would be at risk if fighting a combat mission
I chose to comment on this post because it is important to remember that there is evil out there that wants to take over the world. Remember Hitler? And how literally the entire world sat back and pretty much gave him all that power and look what happened. Hitler came so close to conquering all of Europe and the world. And in a sense the ISIL is doing what Hitler was doing, killing anyone and everyone who was inferior in anyway to them. I believe that coordinated airstrikes are good solutions to this issue and the positive side of this is that no more American lives will be lost in the process making this solution a more effective and a better solution
Susanna J
Obama is addressing the ISIL situation basically saying he has decided to act against them and is asking congress for support. Troops are being sent but not for war but to talk with leaders and campaign for support together. Iraq has now formed a government and is working with troops to aid in assistance to intelligence, training, and equipment. ISIL is not like any other terrorism we had so far they consider themselves and Islamic state but are not they have taken advantages of country's in war and seize the opportunity to gain power they record there massacres they kill children capture and torture prisoners and record they recently killed two American journalist putting the video on the web we are there next target Obama says his been trying to control the situation by sending air strike missiles Obama says his core principal will be " if you threaten America there will be no safe heaven for you". Functionalist perspective on this situation might be what does the country as a whole think for what's best for the United States of America are we just aiding and taking precautions or will this be another full on war. I just think as a society we don't want to go to war and deploy the soldiers that are just coming home be sent out for another five - ten years. In my opinion it's scary to think of another war breaking out but we do need to protect America so it's hard decision to say where am I at wars cost trillions of dollars and many lives. Maybe a solution for right now would be just to monitor the situation work with other states to prepare them if anything happens but not to take any drastic action just yet.
Susanna J commenting on Lalehk
I completely agree with your response it was kind of what I was aiming towards in my blog entry I agree that it's smart that we are trying to seek health from allies as well as agreeing on we shouldn't focus so quickly on going to war instead of giving out weapons and sending out troops we should help feed the poor or get better health care there soon many other problems we have going on as well.
Commenting on Evan W I've never looked at a symbolic perspective but we are a blind nation that gets to be to patriotic we always want to be on top we always want to be the best that one action affects all of the nation . Taking a political science class I learned of the reason we went to war because they suspected they had nuclear weapons and it turns out it was a mistake and by the time it was time to say something it was already to late the decision to go to war was already made by the time the evidence showed there was nothing and yet we wasted millions of dollars and killed innocent people. We need to focus on other things besides war and think of other alternatives or just move to the side for a bit.
Vaheh M.
ISIL is a terrorist organization with hopes of erasing the borders in the Middle East and restoring a form of government that has been eradicated for about 100 years. ISIL is barbaric, using coercion and extreme violence to get rid of anyone who stands in the way of their goals, including women and children. To the people who they now "govern," freedoms that they once enjoyed are now limited to a major degree, and women's rights are degrading. Not only are the minorities suffering at their hands, those who practice the Muslim religion are under threat as well. Although, for now, the problem is located mainly in the Middle East, the issue is a global one. In my opinion, a peaceful resolution can solve most problems in the world, but this is a major exception. If Obama wanted to use violence against them without the aid or consent of any other states in the world, I would be reluctantly supportive, but the fact remains that many other countries are against ISIL, and are planning to use force and violence against the organization. This, in my opinion, is the best way to go about it. A peaceful resolution to an organization who uses violence as the main method to get what they want is to use violence to annihilate them.
A conflict theorist would view this as a power trying to gain power via threats, coercion and violence, another group struggling to maintain its power, and a bunch of other states, seeing a fairly big threat to security, using their power to make sure the first group fails. It is, pure and simple, a struggle for power and control.
Lida G. commenting on Vaheh M.
I agree with Vaheh. ISIL is a terrorist organization with hopes of erasing the borders in the Middle East and restoring a form of government that has been eradicated for 100 years. Many countries are against ISIL.We need peace in this world. Funtionalism, war and terrorism serve several important functions. They increase social solidarity as a society unites to defeat a perceived enemy.
Susanna J
Commenting on Vahen M
I agree with your conflict theory perspective I agree that we are just trying to control the situation and yes we are trying to maintain power but I feel we can still have power by trying to defuse the situation by not just getting right into another situation we are barely trying to finish bringing back all troops from Iraq and they are already getting pulled and sent off not to war quite yet but to go train and supply them with weapons so by the time they come back were off to war. I also liked her summary on the Isis as well as her perspective on peace but for now we can not just rely on peace we have to be ready for any threats to the U.S..What stood out is her position on peace but her alternative to we can no longer just sit back.
Post a Comment