Read an article detailing some aspect of U.S. foreign policy. The article can come from the international section.
Use evidence from the article or from your own personal knowledge/research to make your case...
Make a blog post detailing your feelings on US policy (should the US intervene in other nations' affairs? Why or why not? Can you use evidence to prove your opinions?), and have it posted by Wednesday!
PLEASE make sure you are checking your grammar and spelling. Remember, this is showcased to the entire world!
And thank you for participating in such an exciting project.
Is the USA so powerful that it can't intervene with all the countries of the world?
ResponderEliminarI believe that it's possible, but the USA is where it is now mostly thanks to us, the USA is a country that by time has learned how to get involved in almost all the problems that contries have. For example on the first world war the united states helped at the beginning with weapons for the allies. Then when they were attacked by a german ship, even with a warning, they decided to enter to the war.
I believe that the USA hasn't the rights to interfere in the problems of every single country, I believed that it could be reasonable if the problem affects many countries alike.
Allegedly, USA don't have to intervene in other nation's affairs because each nation has its own policy and they don't need USA's policy to resolve their problems. But, as we know, to many nations depend on USA, and as results of interference, they achieve their goals, like: South Korea (Korea War), German (after World War I), Japan (after World War II), Mexico (Mexican Revolution/ drug trafficking war), most of the Europe nations (after World War I/II) etc.
ResponderEliminarSo I conclude that USA can help and intervene in other nation's affairs provided that if they allow.
US in international affairs.
ResponderEliminarI think that US shouldn't join in the affairs of another countries, i mean US (in my opinion) is almost all of the time acting like an humanitary country but it isn't.US helps everytime he looks an oportunity for his economy grow up, the clearest example we have is Irak, they go into it beacuse is supossed that Irak have nuclear arms, but they still couldn't find any weapon.
Irak is only one of many others that have been invaded by the United States, they want to help to put order in another countries but it's only an excuse (yeah is clearly every good people should get his reward and how the United States can't stay without recive it?).We have a very large list of countries: Corea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Camboya, Brazil, Cuba, and many others.
( http://personal.telefonica.terra.es/web/mleal/articles/latino/12.htm )
But i don't really care about the economy of the United States i worry about the civilians that are affected with all that stuffs, for example an arabic kid don't have the fault because his country is rich in petroleum he had to pay with the life of his dad, his mom, his entire family, until his life.People just like you, just like me, that live in hell just because the ambition of a country.
And you can look it on the TV on the radio all the things that american soldiers are doing with that poor people, they humiliate them just for; fun if you want fun watch a movie or something else but please don't hurt any other life.
(you can look the entire post in my blog :) isn't too big.)
p.s. i'm ivanna :)
ResponderEliminarthe U.S usuall gets involved in ither countries' wars. It way be because they are a helpful countrey, and they have all the calues that they teach to their citizens, but it may also be because manily htey get involved in wars that can affect the United States' stability either in a political, territorial or economical manner. Wheather the way it affects its a positive or negative, it depends, but during the last century it was plainly obvious that that was what was going on. Should the United States interfere? It doesnt have the obligation, but it will do so eitherway
ResponderEliminarSHOULD THE US INTERVINE IN OTHER NATION'S AFFAIRS?
ResponderEliminarLet's start with this simple and common word: Support. Yes,this word is at my point of view, very powerful, define part of the true being of the United States of America.
For example: When President Obama took place or seat in the white house, he knew that a lot of people were trying to live the called "American Dream", he knew he was the first color person (afroamerican) to be on the power, he start to put people on a good job, school etc. And he said: "people who came to America to seek a better life are our best ambassadors to their native nations." So that phrase gave to many the hope that the bible predictions was about to came true.
Im going with this that he look for people's future. He support them, us, u...
I conclude from all this that Supporting is excellent because people need a lider so he or her can tell the comunity "You have to go this way, but then you will decide what's best and next".
And get involved in issues, well i must say that there are the problem because every countrie, nation, state or wathever, has it own policy that can work in some places and in other places not.
So I say and finally conclude that when the United States of American show's that it's capable to handle his own issues and affairs, then he will be a better example of an strong nation.
And only then and just then he will be capable to put, show, give all his "power" to the rest of the world, of course if they allowed
I first have to state that a foreign policy includes involving in other nations issues, in the United States case we can confirm that it has been involved in many situations. As a globalized world, the adequate perspective should be how important and fundamental it is for a nation to involve in international context, and the fact of being able to transmit the REAL information into the ones who surround us when we are informed. I can’t remark an example in which a politic member shows theirs nations the real cause of theirs acts or participations. The United States does have a potential economy and society, it’s true that our support to others it’s basic, but part of that respect is giving others their space to solve their conflicts.
ResponderEliminarThe article is from October 22, 2009 and it is about a cooperation between the US and Chinese to reduce pollution. Some Chinese fear that American calls for pollution reduction are a cover for efforts to slow China’s rise as a global economic power. At the same time, American businesses fear that Chinese calls for cooperation are in fact a plot to pirate American technology and other intellectual property. However, Chinese and American experts agree that cooperation on climate-change issues has grown significantly in the last year. The vice chairman of China’s National Energy Administration, Wu Yin, said the relationship with Washington on clean energy issues “has been elevated to a new level.”
ResponderEliminarIn my opinion, this article changed the way I look at the US. The US doesn't just interfere in wars or attacks other countries. It also tries to solve the worlds problems with collaboration. The US and China are the world's biggest producers of greenhouse gases and they are trying to stop it. It's a good thing that the US is working with a foreign country, despite their differences, to make the world a better place.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/world/asia/23china.html?ref=world
Carlos Nava 15191
the article was published on 21 October 2009, is on the statements made by the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, about the decision you should take Iran and North Korea to end its nuclear programs.
ResponderEliminarIn my opinion these statements are very good as this type of nuclear programs are a threat not only to the United States, but also for everyone, because such threats can produce a catastrophic global war for humanity.
I think that the statements made by Hillary Clinton were very timely because they demonstrate the interest of the United States at all costs to avoid any military conflict could cost human comings.
I conclude that the intrusion of the United States in foreign affairs is good, because a nation so powerful that can help in any aspect to the other countries, just for the simple fact that it has the power to do whatever the purpose for which help In this case the end justifies the means.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/world/22clinton.html?ref=politics
I was searching articles about USA’S foreign policy but I found something pretty interesting too. I encountered interviews made in august to some Afghans that reflect their social feelings. Afghans were preparing for the upcoming presidential and provincial council elections, so BBC News asked people across the country what they would do if they were president. Many of them declared their opposition to America itself and to their troops which are established in their country. "I would move foreign troops out of the main cities" said a radio producer named Wahida Paikan, obviously the phrase is intended to North America’s troops; a logistician named Ahmad Alokozai declared the following "I'd ask the US to control their bombardment", there are actually many problems taking place in Afghanistan, and I assume that a lot of them are caused by Americans. Finally, I show this answer expressed by a civilian named Shah, “I have no other hopes but to see peace". He has faith in solving both internal and external conflicts in the country. The country he and his family live in. But we must think who actually started all these conflicts?
ResponderEliminarI can’t imagine my country, Mexico, being “invaded” by these beings called Americans. It’s not actually a racist or anything opinion, it’s just that their real purpose in this kind of conflicts is to subject us. I can’t imagine my streets being patrolled by American troops. This shows their expansionists purposes. But, if I go a little bit into the past, I remember that America has always penetrated Mexico whenever he wanted (especially in Mexico’s Revolution). It may have been this purpose or another but he has always interfered even in non-war periods in politics; dealing (stealing) sources (especially petroleum), and they’ve never being called. On the other hand, America’s aid may have a lot of financial and commercial benefits, but when we are talking about humanity just like this case of a not healthy lifestyle; America has always dealt a great amount of damage.
You can found the interviews at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/south_asia/2009/if_i_were_president/default.stm
Rafael SC 15602
In response to Oscar:
ResponderEliminarI think its interesting that you DON'T want the U.S. to intervene all the time. Frankly, I agree. I think the U.S. should only get involved when we are being directly affected, but it's hard for such a powerful country to NOT be affected by crisis in other countries is affects.
In response to gooseman19:
ResponderEliminarYou're right, the U.S. isn't obligated, but most likely will continue to interfere in other countries as long as it exists.
In response to Oscar,
ResponderEliminarI believe it is a bit of a generalization to say that Mexico is the main reason why the U.S. is where it is. While I do agree with the fact that Mexican immigrants have contributed greatly to the U.S.'s economy, I believe that we are really our own country. I do agree with you with the fact that we interfere too much in world affairs. As the U.S.'s economy shrinks, we will be taken less seriously on the world stage.
Oscar,
ResponderEliminarWhen I answered this question I though mainly of individual country interference. I think your perspective is really interesting, that the U.S. should take charge when a problem affects multiple countries, rather than singular. I never thought about focusing on the issue rather than the country.