Group items tagged

I find it very interesting that the Damascenes' opinions on U.S. intervention seem to differ based on socio-economic status, but yet the majority of them all agree that Obama should be more decisive about his plans for or against invasion. In general, this article surfaces a lot of interesting points to ponder surrounding the conflict in Syria.

The article makes a very important point. U.S. engagement is not aimed at overthrowing Assad and establishing a new political government or regime, rather American involvement is serving as a deterrent for the prevention of chemical weapon usage by other countries. Such reasoning undercuts the moral virtue of American involvement in Syria and will serve to fuel greater anti-American sentiments in the region.

The ex-president Jovenel Moïse was a democratically elected president with minority support. A group of 26 Colombians ex-soldiers were accused of his murder by disguising as US Drug Enforcement Administration agents. Some suspected that Haitian national Christian Emmanuel Sanon. Haitian people were worried that there would be a new round of civil unrest, but they were also against foreign intervention because history showed that these interventions often caused more harm.

This article is a few weeks old, but the writer brings up interesting points about Islam, the NY mosque debate, and the United States' international relations. His mention of Hiroshima's Peace Park in comparison to the US' plans for Ground Zero is intriguing. Heather's article about the syphilis experiment in Guatemala is just one recent example of why the US is perceived as domineering. I never thought to question our plans for the former site of the World Trade Center, but I completely agree with the writer - why are we building a gaudy shiny tower instead of something more inviting that could facilitate discussions between countries? He states that "It would be nice if our ground zero could become an international home of reconciliation. Instead of continuing the hatred, defuse it."

I agree with Alison. All to often we get caught up in our own opinions which sometimes means that we contend every other opinion is wrong. For example, I think that the mosque should be built near ground zero. I think this because to generalize against a whole religion because of a small part of one of the largest religions in the world seems dumb; however, after thinking about this I do realize that the other side to this argument is valid. Why a mosque? Can't we accomplish something similar in terms of fostering peace by building something else? As heather said, this still could be moving forward in the wrong direction. I do not know. But I am trying to be open about the other side to this very multidimensional issue. It is wrong of us to think it is an ethical issue with two side of right and wrong, there is in fact a lot of grey areas.

Hey all, I'd just like to remind everyone that the "mosque" is not being built at ground zero (in fact it's in a Burlington Coat Factory blocks away: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/just-how-far-is-the-groun_b_660585.html. I think the ethical debate surrounding the issue is just further testament to the fact that many Americans unconsciously subscribe to media hype, regardless of their positions on issues. While I agree with what has been said about the ethics of a hypothetical mosque at ground zero, we should realize that this ethical dilemma is a fallacy and exists only as a headline. Also, I think the we/the press/everyone should be more careful who we label as "crazy irrational terrorists". We should realize that those guys didn't get on the planes on 9/11 because they were born without enough of X hormone, they were there because of a long history of western intervention etc. in their home countries. We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss terrorism as an irrational act by sick people, it only allows us to forget the underlying complicity that we have with the issue.

This article is about John Kerry's diplomatic proposal to Syria to give up its chemical weapons in order to avoid US intervention. Russia, a close ally of Assad's regime, has supported Kerry's proposal and is discouraging Syria from using chemical weapons, if it will deter an American strike on Syria.

This is an important development, especially in the light of Putin's letter. Hopefully all of the countries will cooperate to make this non-violent solution a reality.

BEIJING - White House officials have lauded President Xi Jinping's anticipated promise of a national market for China in greenhouse gas quotas as a breakthrough in environmental cooperation and reform. But to work well, Mr. Xi's plan, expected to be announced in Washington on Friday, will demand big changes from a government accustomed to heavy-handed intervention and skewed statistics.

I really like the cap and trade idea because it ensures that the every firm is paying the maximum amount each is willing to spend to pollute the air. Firms that don't value being able to pollute as much can sell their permits and use the money to become more environmentally friendly. The cap and trade method encourages technological change that reduces the harm from each unit of a firm's product. As the article says, "The intended result is a competitive market that induces companies to devise ways to reduce emissions." The cap and trade method will hopefully relieve China of some of its pollution.

The national environmental quota set by the cap and trade announced by President Xi shows that there is some possibility of environmental cooperation from China, one of the world's most heavy polluters. The article voices the well founded skepticism of critics, who doubt that this new system will work well when it hasn't exactly taken off among the nations of the European Union; however, China's state is very different from its western counterparts. Comparatively, it can exact more control over its countries' businesses and factories, so this system just may be successful.

This article is both interesting and unique in that it is an opinion piece written by a resident of Northern Ireland instead of a traditional news article. The author argues that UK politicians omit Northern Ireland from discussions about Brexit, and a potential withdrawal could threaten the peace that the island has managed to keep for the past 20 years. Interestingly, she is also critical of Joe Biden's involvement, saying that his actions anger Unionists, or protestants who support remaining a part of the UK.

It will be interesting to see the United States' involvement in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement as we get closer to and after the election.

As someone who read an article regarding Joe Biden's involvement in the discussion, it was interesting to hear that, despite his positive intentions, from the perspective of someone who would be hurt by a rupture in the Good Friday Agreement, his intervention was actually negative.

Recently, Russia announced that it had created the first Covid-19 vaccine. They were immediately met with skepticism by many Western countries, as well as from doctors around the world. I find it very interesting that Russia named their vaccine "Sputnik V" after Sputnik 1, the first space satellite; it seems like Russia wants to mirror the Space Race by racing to find a vaccine while other countries focus on trials to ensure a potential vaccine's safety and effectiveness.

Although it is obvious that this vaccine has not undergone enough testing for researchers to fully understand its efficiency or possible side effects, I find it interesting that western countries were so quick to dismiss it completely. I recently read an article on Dr. Fauci that explained his time as a health official during the AIDS crisis. Because scientists did not know how the virus spread and the majority of its victims were a part of the gay community, researchers refused to go off the strict track of trials usually regulated. In short, thousands and thousands of ill people were rapidly dying yet being told they could not undergo treatment for fear of bad side effects or results. After lots of protest from the LBGTQ community, Fauci, as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, allowed for more experimental drug treatment due to the deadliness of the virus. Today, he is regarded as a hero and a scientific humanist who did the right thing when it was necessary. Yet when Russia follows a similar track, it is regarded as rushed and faked for nice press or some Cold-War feud against the US. Although the death rate was much higher, and subsequently side effects would matter less if the patient would ultimately die without intervention (whereas with Covid, side effects could be catastrophic by worsening large groups of the population who would have otherwise survived), I find it interesting that Americans still harbor so much resentment towards Russia (or at least assume that everything must be a competition). I wonder how this was reported on in other countries.