For everyone in the United States, September 11, 2001 was a tragic day. A common question of our generation is where were you on 9/11? Everyone has a story and everyone is in some way connected to the September 11 attacks. Last week we were all focused on the 9/11 attacks particularly on all people that were lost. What was not mentioned were the events that took place after 9/11, the war on terror, the weapons of mass destruction, and the countless number of young Americans that died in war. This information has almost become a taboo to mention when remembering 9/11. I think that it is very important to think about the aftermath of 9/11 on a more broad scale. With this in mind, I found an article that highlights the cost of the actions of the United States after September 11, and I have found a movie that sees the war of terror as a national need. Please analyze both objectively and please keep in mind the Deborah Tannen article when posting and responding to posts.
Based on the article and the movie I would like you to answer one of these prompts. You also need to comment on one of your classmates posts. The three prompts are listed below.
1.) Propose a less dualistic view on the war on terror, and possible reasons for why there is such a dualistic view on the war on terror.
2.) How does the article show the way that American’s seem to focus more on their own freedoms rather than the freedoms of others? Does this remind you of how the declaration of independence focuses only on White Anglo-Saxon Protestant freedom instead of the freedom of all people?
3.) Compare and contrast the techniques used to by Thomas Jefferson in the declaration of independence and Lt. General E. R. Bedard to sway public opinion for a war. Also is nationalism always a positive thing? Explain.
Article: http://rt.com/news/terrorism-9-11-war-219/ (please click read related column at the bottom of the page)
Video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/248744/why_we_fight_terrorism/
In response to question two, I think that the war on terror is about the freedom of others, as well as our own freedom. Before the wars, both Afghanistan and Iraq were run by governments that deeply oppressed their people. For example, under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, women were not allowed an education. Additionally, women were not allowed to work or go out in public without a close male relative. In Iraq many people were killed under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein not only oppressed, tortured and killed his own people, but also attacked other countries in an effort to overtake them. America’s efforts to liberate the oppressed people of both Iraq and Afghanistan show noble goals and heroism. Looking back we see that in ten years, through the heroic efforts of the United States of America, both Afghanistan and Iraq have taken giant steps from living in the dark ages to living in a modern “free” society. While it is terrible that lives are lost in war, the brave soldiers who died gave the ultimate sacrifice of their lives for the freedom of others, and will always be remembered with honor.
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to Valerie's comment. I definitely agree with the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan have made some sort of progress in becoming more modernized. It's bazaar to think about the fact that women could not go out in public or have any rights in these countries while in America women have had rights for over 50 years. I feel as though in the next 10 years women might actually gain more rights in these countries.
ReplyDeleteFirst on 9/11, probably like most people, I remember being in my 3rd grade classroom having math class when our teachers put the news on as we all watch the devastation of the twin towers being demolished. Although, we were only 9 or 10 at the time we knew this couldn't be good. I feel as though it is hard to grow up in a society that revolves around war and violence. In response to question 2 in the article it shows a pie chart that shows the casualties from 9/11 and almost 95% were civilians in Iraq being killed. Before, Americans got involved after 9/11 Iraq was being killed off by their own government. Although we still find reasons to stay in these countries, we're also protecting this citizens and trying to give them freedom. As well we are also very worried about our freedoms and that is why after we find our target (such as Bin Laden), we find a new one to ensure our freedoms but also put some other persons freedom at risk.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lauren, the article never mentions trying to liberate the other countries, but this is probably because the article seems to try to slander the war on terror. Knowing that the civilians in Iraq were being killed off by their own people is an important fact that affects how people will view the pie chart. As for question 2, the article seems to focus on only the American side of the war rather than how it affects foreign countries. As I said already, i cannot recall if it even mentioned, let alone talked about, the freedom of foreign people. In this respect, the article only talks about America, which makes it seem like we do not even care about how the war affects other countries.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe article in question portrays America to focus solely on the freedom of our people, rather than on the freedom of others. This idea became prominent a few years after the attack on 9/11/2001. When devastating terrorism shook the United States on that fateful day, our nation’s safety became our number one priority. For the next few years, troops and government officials worked hand in hand to create newfound security for our country. We entered Afghanistan with the intention of finding the leaders of Al-Qaeda and locking them up in efforts to further protect our nation. This effort was based on conserving the freedom of the United States. When the United States became aware of weapons of mass destruction being kept in Iraq, the safety of our freedom was once again the motive behind entering a war. However, while the nation fought battles in Iraq, we were indirectly fighting towards Iraqis' freedom by fighting and opposing their suppressive leader. Also, by attempting to secure the volatile weapons, America consequently preserved the freedom of other countries that could potentially have been attacked with the use of such weapons in the future. As a nation, the United States may be first and foremost concerned with the safety of our freedom; but we indirectly work to create and preserve freedom for other countries around the world. The focus on the freedom of our nation’s people, rather than the world as a whole, is a parallel to the way in which the declaration of independence focuses only on the freedom of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, rather than people of all races and religions.
ReplyDeleteQuestion number two asks about our countries goals and reasons for fighting in the Operation: Iraqi Freedom war, and the article given shows many reasons why those reasons are self-promoted. According to this article, when the US wanted to attack Iraq and Al-Queda they had no problem coming up with extra information that portrayed the situation in Iraq as highly dangerous to our everyday life. The media talked of "weapons of mass destruction" and "axis of evil" and "war on terror" to draw up popularity from the population. This was used to get popularity for the war that's main goal was to protect our freedom. The graph in the article also shows that nearly 95% of all the deaths in the war are Iraqi citizens, which supports the idea that the war wasn't to free the Iraqi people. Personally, I would be pretty upset if our government wasn't curious and had an eye on Al-Queda. It would be much worse if they weren't suspicious of them at all because then we would have much more serious issues on our hands. In response to Katelynn, I completely agree that by fighting for our freedom, our armed forces and government were fighting for their freedom as well. This is not particularly portrayed in the article but I do believe this is the case because they faced a cruel government that suppressive and destructive.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is very appropriate for the month of September, brought up a few weeks after the eleventh. Everyone memorializes that one day and those specific people who died, but they neglect to comprehend that moments of that magnitude have been reoccuring. That one moment was not the beginning or end of the War on Terror, people are distracted and they do not seem to register that there is a war going on unless it is in their own backyard nowadays.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the third question, Lt. General E. R. Bedard used the same techniques as Thomas Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence in regards to how he listed the offenses of Terrorism, whereas Jefferson listed the offenses of King George III. Thomas Jefferson's words declared the independence of the thirteen colonies from Great Britain as Lt. General Bedard spoke of the freedom America already has that must be protected. Lt. General brought up that Terrorism has been happening for many decades, and it did not abruptly surface. The oppression of Great Britain was long before the American Revolution, and it continued to suppress its own citizens for sometime afterwards.
Nationalism is not always a good thing, because when people have a strong passion for something, they have a hard time controlling themselves and respecting different opinions when they are opposed. Nationalism provides to a united country, people standing together, but in the broader scope of the integrated world, it can easily go from someone having a passion for something to having hatred against anyone who disagrees. Thinking that one way is the best and only way is what causes war.