Group items tagged

Something worth thinking about.

I wish I had time to fully understand all that Baudrillard writes in this piece. I guess he is arguing that the biggest institution of all--globalized anything--is the cause of terrorism. He writes, "In this way it is indeed a World War, not the third one, but the fourth and only truly World War, as it has as stakes globalization itself. The first two World Wars were classic wars. The first ended European supremacy and the colonial era. The second ended Nazism. The third, which did happen, as a dissuasive Cold War, ended communism. From one war to the other, one went further each time toward a unique world order. Today the latter, virtually accomplished, is confronted by antagonistic forces, diffused in the very heart of the global, in all its actual convulsions. . . . . It is a conflict so unfathomable that, from time to time, one must preserve the idea of war through spectacular productions such as the Gulf (production) and today Afghanistan's. But the fourth World War is elsewhere. It is that which haunts every global order, every hegemonic domination; -if Islam dominated the world, terrorism would fight against it. For it is the world itself which resists domination." I think there's a lot more that he says, so I'll have to return to this one. Maybe you can share your read on this in class, Wendell. Thanks!

Yeah, this article is definitely difficult to understand without an extensive background on his social theory (what he's written about what he calls symbolic exchange, the exclusion of the dead, the procession of the model or simulacra). What he's arguing is definitely that globalization is creating the seeds of its own destruction, but terrorism is but one example of this process. To clarify, when he says "the spirit of terrorism" and "Then let us be immoral ourselves and, if we want to understand something, let us go somewhat beyond Good and Evil. As we have, for once, an event that challenges not only morals, but every interpretation, let us try to have the intelligence of Evil.", he's not trying to advocate for murder or anything but rather is suggesting that the strategy taken by terrorists is something theoretically important. The last things he published were "The Intelligence of Evil" and "The Agony of Power" where he more or less argued that it is impossible to assimilate singular individuals, cultures, and ways of life under a universal (which he refers to as the Good in the article ^) and that attempts at assimilation only make "Evil" more powerful and make it more likely for the Good to collapse in on itself. He thinks this process is occurring across all planes of social existence and is inevitable. He wrote about a possible attack on the twin towers decades in advance and the Spirit of Terrorism was sort of like a "I told you this would happen" to the academy. The thing about Baudrillard is that he takes a very pessimistic outlook on the trajectory of modernity/post-modernity and was probably looking forward to the collapse of globalization/capitalism/the world order. While that's obviously a controversial and morally dubious opinion, he's still definitely very interesting to read about. Andrew Robinson wrote a bunch of articles describing his social theory/what he means for activism and the world today. While they are pretty dense and probably requir

This month, the town's fascist sympathies became the subject of intense debate when its mayor unveiled a publicly financed memorial to one of its most controversial former citizens: Rodolfo Graziani, a general under Mussolini who was accused of war crimes at the end of World War II and earned the title of "the Butcher" in two campaigns during Italy's colonization of North Africa in the 1920s and '30s.

CoPo Relevance: influence of a country's history over its current identity/political culture. Thanks, Alexander.

The Republican National Convention took an uncharacteristic turn toward foreign policy on Wednesday night, as two prominent speakers lashed out at President Barack Obama's leadership in world affairs. "Unfortunately, for four years, we've drifted away from our proudest traditions of global leadership, traditions that are truly bipartisan," said Sen.

Very interesting. I like this quote from the article: "Rice oversaw U.S. foreign policy during a time when many citizens have come to feel the United States overextended itself abroad, entering into two wars that continued well into the Obama administration (and one, Afghanistan, that continues to this day). Perhaps in a nod to that legacy, Rice acknowledged that "there is a weariness -- I know that it feels as if we have carried these burdens long enough." But, she continued, "One of two things will happen if we don't lead: No one will lead and there will be chaos, or someone will fill the vacuum who does not share our values. My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice: We cannot be reluctant to lead, and you cannot lead from behind." For us to discuss: what IS the United States' foreign policy role today? How might it be changing?

"Earlier in the day, Rice had offered some specific criticisms of Obama's handling of the uprising in Syria, accusing the president of waffling and "muting" America's voice."

I chose this article because I felt that it gave a better view of the conflict happening in Iraq. The article shows how divided the Iraqi factions are, as well as shining a light on what the goals and motivations of the groups are. I feel that it is important for us as a class to look into what drives ISIS and I think this article is a good starting point.

Similar to what Dr. Bradley said, I wonder if the militias that were funded by Iran are simply mercenaries or are actually loyal to the country. Is it possible that this is Iran's attempt to grab land for a weak Iraq?

I was shocked and at the same time not so surprised to find out about the many separate factions and flags flying throughout Iran and Iraq in this multifaceted crisis. The quests for power that these militant groups are involved in has called many "volunteers" to the forefront of the militant groups political and religious ambitions. I'm curious to know about the situations in the areas of the many "volunteers". Are they in areas that have already been compromised, thus they don't mind going to sacrifice their life on a daily basis fighting, or they are so devoted to their religion that they really won't stand to see their sacred Shiite shrine bombed by Sunni factions? As Dr. Bradley questioned, where are all these weapons coming from? How many militant groups are as "sensible" as the Peace Brigade?

Under intense pressure, South Sudan's beleaguered government has relented and will allow more United Nations peacekeepers into the country. In the two and a half years since civil war erupted, South Sudan has been the scene of atrocities including civilian massacres, the forcing of children into militias, the burning of emergency food supplies.

Article on Russia's military presence in Georgia since the war in 2008. Russia recognizes two states which have succeeded from Georgia which are more normally not recognized.

A little gross humor. Really questionable taste. I can credit and you can thank Ryan Trutner for finding this one.

This video uses food in a very unique way to demonstrate different countries and the violence between them. The part about the twin towers definitely had a certain emotional effect even though they were made out of hamburgers it still got the point across.