Comment on Emily Thomas' "A More Peaceful War"

I’m not sure where this blog is going when finish reading it. What brought me to attention was the title, “A More Peaceful War”. In the first half of the blog, the author presented her views on war, in which she described it as cruel yet necessary. I have no argument against her opinions on this because I completely agree. Mankind will never obtain true peace because it is not in the realm of possiblity. We denounce battles during times of war, yet we crave battles during times of peace. War can bring both stability and instability to our world. I believe that war leads to peace because we can’t really call it peace if there’s no war. Overall, I agree with what the author has to say about war. However, during the second half the blog, the author presents her solution to a more peaceful war by shutting down prison camps and refrain from taking prisoners of war. First of all, I personally have no clue what a peaceful war is. Wars are chaotic and horrific, I don’t think one can change what war is. You can’t call it a war if soldiers are not getting hurt or killed and no matter how what kind of fancy words used, war is still a battleground where soldiers are killed. Second, I do notice the author’s opinion on the cruel acts prison camps lay on the prisoners of war. She believe that America should shut down prison camps such as the Guantanamo Bay and should refrain from taking prisoners of war. I respectfully disagree, as much as it pains me. I am against the tourturing methods of prison camps, but I do think that locking prisoners of war inside prison camps are necessary. The only thing I would change would be banning torture and giving POW a fair trial. Other than that, I don’t think it is necessary to shut down prison camps. I believe that every country has its ugliness, and this is one of America’s wrinkes. Yes, other countries might be given a negative view on our nation, but we are the leader and the governing country of the world. 

Obama Administration's Troop Withdrawal Plan

                People of the United States are still asking when their beloved soldiers will come home. The Obama administration has been developing a plan that will begin transfer security duties in Afghanistan to that country's forces. The process will take approximately 18 to 24 months and it is believed that the mission in Afghanistan will end by 2014. This four year plan will be presented at a NATO summit meeting in Lisbon. The plan will be pretty similar to the troop withdrawal in Iraq under George W. Bush's administration. American troops will steadily decrease as more Afghan civilians and military officials are thoroughly trained by U.S. forces to become Afghan fighters. The trained soldiers will then replace deployed soldiers and defend the country for themselves. Eventually majority of the U.S. troops will be brought home and only few American forces will remain for further teachings and support in case of emergencies.

                I personally believe that the plan takes too long and I have doubts about the success of Obama administration's plan. First of all, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan does not have any structure of government. It is hard to believe that by simply training defense tactics and giving weapons to civilians will bring order to the country and the people. Second, this plan, just like the one in Iraq, violates the mind your own business policy. It is one of the many reasons why many countries disapprove United States’ foreign affair plans. Although Americans are in Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and civilize the people, our help might be interpreted as meddling and could cause scornful tensions between soldiers and Afghans. Worst of all, future rebels might form to oppose American help. The correct action is when our country is attacked or threatened, we wipe out our enemies, and then we leave. There's no reason to overstay our welcome in other countries, especially with the economy is in a state of recession. The military is also losing money and it is visible by the number of cut backs on bonus money for soldiers and reduction in troops. Not only are the soldiers away from their family, but also losing money to support them. What I believe should be done right now is just withdrawal our troops. We have kept our soldiers from their families long enough, why should they stay in a country that doesn't even want our help? Why should we stay on the battlefield when our enemies are already vanquished?

Comment on Stephanie Heisner's "Uncle Sam Wants YOU... Unless You're Homosexual"

In my opinion, I have to disagree with what the reasons the author has presented in her article. As a current member of the United States Army Reserve Unit, it is clear that I have more insight on this subject than civilians. The author presents only a few arguments, declaring banning homosexuals from the military is unconstitutional and that it is inhumane. Although both arguments are true, the author fails to recognize the downside of openly accepting gays into the military.

First of all, I have no ill feelings toward homosexuals. People could kiss, love, and marry the same sex if one desires it. I accept this philosophy and have never discriminated against any gay men or women. With that said however, accepting gays openly into the military causes several problems. First, soldiers are not authorized to sleep in the same building or tent with the sex that they are attracted to. Straight men are not allowed sleep near women and vice versa. Where will gay soldiers sleep is beyond me. Extra building and rules restricting sexual tensions among soldiers will require more time and money. Also, being around gay soldiers might make other soldiers uncomfortable. One might confuse a gesture of friendship or bro-mance with sexual harassment, thus destroying trust and unity in the military. A group of straight soldiers taking a shower in the latrine can’t say that they feel comfortable when a gay soldier walks in.

The army life is very different from the civilian life because soldiers can’t just get over it. Yes, it is unconstitutional, but not inhumane. Many soldiers accept homosexuals and they certainly don’t live in fear. No one is asking and no one is blaming. Openly announcing gay soldier would only create problems and tension.

Homosexuals In The Military

One of the many issues discussed in us politics is whether or not are gays allowed in the military. The Republican Party has fought the Democratic Party on this topic for many years. Republicans, throughout the years, have opposed accepting gays in the military. Democrats believe the right to serve in the military should not be rejected due to one’s sexual preference. Although I support the Democratic Party on many issues such as independent energy, I cannot comprehend the fact of openly allowing gays to be in the military.

First of all, I don’t have any opposition against homosexuals. It is one’s rights to kiss, love, or marry anyone at his or her desire. There are probably gays in the military, but the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy prevents soldiers from spreading rumors. Military discipline and maintenance is very strict within the military. One must look sharp and organized not only under the eyes of upper ranks, but also among the citizens of the world. Openly expressing that the military accepts homosexuals will create havoc on the military’s image. The image of soldiers of the same sex making out will ruin the tough and rough image of the United States military. Boot camps will have to restructure their barracks for gays to sleep in because soldiers cannot sleep in the same bay as the opposite sex or the sex one is attracted to. This could cause greater costs on military spending. Sexual harassment is a serious crime in the military. If the government openly welcomes gays and that soldiers are allowed to express their sexual preference, chances of sexual harassment or activities would increase. If a soldier is not gay and is sexually harassed or assaulted by a gay soldier, tension among soldiers will increase, thus destroying trusts and friendship among soldiers. Civilian clothing can show our personality and can also show off our skin to attract the opposite sex. When one puts on a United States uniform, it shows courage, honor, and duty. The uniform does not symbolize one’s self, but the country. It is a disgrace if sexual activities, sexual tension, or individuality are created while one is in that uniform.  

Overall, I am not against having homosexuals within the military. However, announcing and openly accepting homosexuals into the armed forces should not be allowed because it can create havoc and destroy trusts between soldiers.

Environmental Laws: For the Good or Bad?

The title of the article is “Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith” written by John M. Broder. The article mainly focuses on the skepticisms of policies to reduce emission of carbon dioxide. A democratic representative, Baron P. Hill, explained the reasons for his vote for the House cap-and-trade energy bill believe that the bill can create jobs in Indiana, reduce foreign oil imports, and address global warming. Hill’s vote was followed by echoes of boos and skepticisms. Many politicians believe that global warming isn’t true and thinks that it is just another way of controlling revenue. Clearly, the author believes agrees with the skepticisms of global warming. The article lists a number of opinions ranging from politicians to political groups. Intended audiences could be anyone with concerns about global warming regulations and policies. The author used opinions and quotes from various politicians such as Sarah Palin, Kelly Khuri, and Norman Dennison. Voices of certain parties and groups can also be found, including the Indiana Tea Party and the Freedom Works, another group supported by the oil industry. However, most of these opinions are negative views on climate controlling legislations. Reasons range from religious beliefs, to denying the existence of climate change, to skepticisms. Although the author did not state his views on the topic, readers can conclude that he does not believe in carbon emission laws. Throughout the article, reasons for backing up climate control laws were limited to only the first paragraph, while reasons for objecting the laws were plentiful. The author provided the reader with credible sources such as supporting/opposing polls from the New York Times/CBS News to support his unstated arguments. 

As a strong supporter of environmental protection, I have to disagree on most the arguments made by the author and the opinions presented in the article. I strongly believe the global warming exists and it is caused by man. To me it is just common sense, when one doesn’t take the trash out after eating; one can expect rotten smells and cockroaches in one’s house. The same can be said about carbon emission, as it is our society’s trash. If we don’t clean up after ourselves, the earth as we once know will become more unstable and polluted. I don’t have an honest opinion for the people who are skeptical of the carbon emission laws as they believe the legislations are masquerades for the greed to control revenue. Although the economy isn’t strong right now, environmental friendly laws such as the House cap-and-trade bill can help the environment and create jobs. I disagree with the opinions supported by the author because all of them to me seem reluctant to adapt and selfish.

Young Voters in Decline

The title of the article is “The kids aren’t alright: Obama and the youth vote” and is written by Carrie Dann. What caught my attention are the “youth vote” words in the title and it is intended for young people who have interests in politics. The credibility of the author is fairly high due the many quotes spoken by many politicians such as Peter Levine, director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. The article suggests that president Barack Obama is targeting young voters for presidential support and votes. Campaigning to young voters is considered a good plan due to its cost efficiency and that young voters aren’t targeted by other groups. (Peter Levine) However, the article argues that a number of reasons that the young Democratic supporters are slightly declining. NBC’s latest poll shows that only 23 percent of young voters are interested in the 2010 election compared to 2006’s 50 percent. The recession may have also caused a heavier burden on young people than older ones. Another reason is that Obama’s presidency has not resonated with the campaign messages he presented. Dann’s article on how Obama’s presidential strategy of targeting young voters is not as effective as his first presidential campaigns. The author presented the reader with valid reasons on how the strategy was effective and why the strategy has become ineffective. As a young voter myself, I can relate to this article and believe that the reasons young people are less interested in the 2010 campaign are reasonable. Due to the recession, young people tend to focus more on job searching and have fewer times to think about voting. The most valid reason is that the president has not lived up to the expectation many thought he would and that many are either still hoping or disappointed with the president. The intended audience of this Dann’s article is clearly young people with the ability to vote. It sends a message that we even though many of us are uninterested in the next presidential campaign for a variety of reasons, we still need to be more involved. Becoming more involved in voting is the only way to bring change and I agree with the message Carrie Dann is sending through this article.

Illegal Immigration Constroversy

Illegal immigration has been an issue many Americans have debated over the last century. Many thinks immigrants are a being a burden on the economy by taking over jobs.Now that the U.S. economy is in a time of recession, the motivation of implementing a ban on illegal immigrants are higher than ever. Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican, declared his adamant opposition to illegal immigration by announcing that one of his first acts of his second term would would be to press for a law that would make it easier for local police officials to arrest illegal immigrants, a law that would be closely modeled on the law Arizona adopted which is now is now being challenged by the Obama administration in court. Although I am not an illegal citizen, I do have friends who crossed the boarder illegally. This New York Times article is worth reading because it shows the benefits and consequences of banning illegal immigration and not banning it.