Here is an editorial that discusses the ramifications (politicians call it Blowback) of when a government, our government, intervenes in other revolutions. Appropriate for our research paper.
I understand that the U.S wants to spread democracy all over the world by giving the people rights to chose their leader. But putting a temporary leader in power is causing more problems in these country like protest becasue leaders break promises to govern virtuously and instead focused on staying in power and silencing their political opponents. Period 6 Nickie Kang
I think it is very interesting to see the influence the United States has on so many countries. I feel to an extent, it is important to be involved in other countries, but it is also important to have supportive evidence and facts about the issues or people you, as a country, decide to support. If the U.S. doesnt know enough facts on a person (for example a candidate) we should wait before supporting them, or we run the risk of hurting the countries' progression, rather than helping it. ~emily e. period 6
In general, I agree with this article, but the part that I agreed with the most was when the author talked about how to avoid the pitfalls of electing a bad leader for a country who will just bring the country back to where it started. The author thoroughly investigated past pitfalls where people like Mr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari failed at their job of bringing democracy to their countries. I also like how the author created a list of qualities that each failed leader had, and these were those who "wax eloquent about democracy and moderation, hold advanced degrees and speak English." I think that this article does a good job of pointing out how the United States intervenes in many global issues like the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East, and then attempts to put in leaders for those countries, which clearly shows how the United States is trying to do what is best for the United States only and how this country is out to protect itself and its interests in order to become more powerful.
I thought this article was really fascinating as it really was closely related to the situation I am currently researching in Egypt. The United States truly must be very cautious and prudent when choosing who to head the tentative government; failure to chose effective leaders has in the past led to totalitarian regimes that promoted anything but democracy and free elections. What really stood out to me is how the US endorsed many leaders such as Tantawi and Thaci. Instead of promoting democracy, Hashim Thaci took advantage of his position in the interim government and went on to swindle an election to make himself to prime minister. It is really vital that leaders like Barack Obama scratch deeper below the surface and really understand whom they put in charge of the interim government. As we have seen, such decisions tend to be more than just temporary and sometimes may pave the way to the future of the respective country. Superficial qualities must be put aside and the real question must be answered with certainty: will this leader promote free elections and follow up to promises? All in all, this article really was interesting and shed light on how the decisions should be made during tumultuous times in Southwest Asia. For now, all we can do is wait and hope that all plays out well.
I thought this article was really fascinating as it really was closely related to the situation I am currently researching in Egypt. The United States truly must be very cautious and prudent when choosing who to head the tentative government; failure to chose effective leaders has in the past led to totalitarian regimes that promoted anything but democracy and free elections. What really stood out to me is how the US endorsed many leaders such as Tantawi and Thaci. Instead of promoting democracy, Hashim Thaci took advantage of his position in the interim government and went on to swindle an election to make himself to prime minister. It is really vital that leaders like Barack Obama scratch deeper below the surface and really understand whom they put in charge of the interim government. As we have seen, such decisions tend to be more than just temporary and sometimes may pave the way to the future of the respective country. Superficial qualities must be put aside and the real question must be answered with certainty: will this leader promote free elections and follow up to promises? All in all, this article really was interesting and shed light on how the decisions should be made during tumultuous times in Southwest Asia. For now, all we can do is wait and hope that all plays out well.
After i read this editorial, I was surprised by the fact that the Untied States has great influence on selecting who rules between the collapse of an authoritarian regime and holding of election. I knew that the U.S. has impact on other affairs, such as the economy,and some what political. However, I never thought that other country look a upon U.S., to choice there leader. From now on I'll never look at the nation the same way as before. Also, now I learned that the U.S. has a affect on other country too in there government. -Ed Wu
I think it's pretty nice how the United States is getting involved to help out struggling countries stabilize their government. They are trying to pick out the best candidate(s) for the position(s) of running a country. However, I think this might cause further tensions in the future. I think the people who are being forced out of power might find some way to get back at the U.S. government, and that is obviously not good. Nonetheless, I suppose if it's to help out a struggling country, it might be worth it. -I.Y. Period 6
I find it quite interesting how the United States finds it necessary to have to step in whenever another country is going through some turmoil. I understand that the United States is in the P5 and yada, yada, yada, but that does not mean that the United States provides aid to others even when not asked for. Yes, sometimes our actions lead to the better, but many times it leads to more turmoil. And the cause for this is simple- we push forth an educated and Westernized among a group of people (and I know I am being politically incorrect and stretching the truth slightly)who are not too learned and are still true to their non-Westernized ways. Therefore by using this power over the others/ eliminating opponents the United States' decision takes a turn for the worse. I believe that the United States has no right to decide what kind of governement/ leader is good and what is bad- unless asked for, aid should not be given. It is necessary for us to clean up our own mess, before we try to clean up the mess of others'. K.Suri (pd. 6)
I don't particularly understand the article but I sense negative feelings toward Obama from the author of the article. He expresses that Obama used more power to control a foreign problem than bush. He also talks about Egypt and the political leaders of the past we have given seats to and they were described not as good leaders.
This article helped me learn just how much influence an outside nation like the U.S. can have on nations undergoing revolution. Although an outside force may elect only a temporary leader, that leader may be corrupt and just completely mess up the nation. This particular article showed that putting a leader into power just because he or she supports democracy doesn't necessarily guarantee that that leader will rule that way. As was the case in many nations, lots of leaders actually had shady backgrounds but were still instilled into power by the U.S. I realized that this is also the case for Libya, Egypt and the other nations going through revolution today. Without properly choosing a good leader that'll support democracy, that nation will constantly be going through political change.
The US has a huge influence on picking the leaders for a new government.Although the US may have good intentions, allowing the US to "pick" leaders may be a mistake. Countless times, leaders say that they will rule with the people's wishes in mind, but they focus more on retaining their own power. -Joshua Jang period 6
It is surprising that although the United States is struggling economically, they still have an influence on foreign leaders. They play a huge role in who comes into power in foreign countires such as Egypt and Libiya. However, i feel that it is wrong that the Unites States influence other countries. The United States promotes democracy and voting, but when it comes to other countries, they always invade the privacy and influence the country. In many ways, the United States is like a dictatorship. It rules over the other countries like a father would rule over his grown son. I think that the United States should focus internally and fix their own economic problems before helping other countires. Vihar Shah and Adam Hakimian Period 6 World
It's amazing to see how much power and influence the United States has on the rest of the world. They get to choose everything and rule over other countries and other countries rely on us. We have the greatest power in the world but we don't always make the best decisions for other countries and sometimes we worsen a situation.
We're always pushing for democracy in countries around the world but we never succeed achieving it. Also so many countries around the world are still being ruled by a monarchy and many people are rebeling against their rulers because they've been in power for so long and want a change. For example, this has been going on in Egypt for a while now and we've stopped helping when we're allies with them.
I dont reallu understand the aritcle but the thing that I got out of it was that Obama is using more forgien power than President Bush did. the citizens of the US dont like that Obama uis doing this to other countries Ryan Orlando per 6
It's actually interesting to know that the US. is stepping in whenever another country is in trouble and how, how much power they hold. Also, many leaders have been not trying to help their countries, but to just remain in power and silencing their opponents. But the US. is most focusing on transitioning from authoritarianism to democracy on other countries and, well, fail because the leaders don't have skill to protect their countries from enemies within the government.
its funny how the US always steps in to help a country in turmoil. even when they dont want it. and it has NO impact on us.maybe its because the US is in teh p5 but, as self centered as it sounds, we need to take care of ourselves before we look at others.and i get that the US likes to be the international police of sorts, but we honestly cant keep up with all that goes on. and its understandable that DEMOCRACY is GOOD. i think. but honestly, some places just dont want or need us. its better to leave them alne until they ask for help or threaten us or our allies. that way we can spread democracy and not be seen as monsters. maybe if we took on one issue at a time, we'd have a better chance at succeding. but then theres always the counter argument taht that is what we did with hitler and look what happened, but that is when the other countries should help. the world cant expect us to spread out and be the superhero. its just not possibel and it wont happen. Khusbu P
This can relate to the U.S involvement in European affairs before the Cold War, and I agree that it does not affect us. But I think that democracy can have a good effect on the countries, for it brought down totalitarian regimes and replaced them with leaders the people want. However, it is very difficult to find a proper leader. Eventually many of these leaders will want to have more power, which does not help the country at all. This is a very risky business, so president Obama "has to seek out the right qualities." -Kevin Yu World 6
What I got from this article was that the United States is trying to spread democracy thoughout the world by letting other countries have the people choose who they want to govern. However, the United States has a big impact on who will be elected. Doing this isn't always a good thing because the leaders aren't always for the people and many times are just trying to keep power, which causes turmoil and protest in other countries.
I understand that the U.S wants to spread democracy all over the world by giving the people rights to chose their leader. But putting a temporary leader in power is causing more problems in these country like protest becasue leaders break promises to govern virtuously and instead focused on staying in power and silencing their political opponents.
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Nickie Kang
I think it is very interesting to see the influence the United States has on so many countries. I feel to an extent, it is important to be involved in other countries, but it is also important to have supportive evidence and facts about the issues or people you, as a country, decide to support. If the U.S. doesnt know enough facts on a person (for example a candidate) we should wait before supporting them, or we run the risk of hurting the countries' progression, rather than helping it.
ReplyDelete~emily e. period 6
Karishma Tank
ReplyDeleteperiod 6
In general, I agree with this article, but the part that I agreed with the most was when the author talked about how to avoid the pitfalls of electing a bad leader for a country who will just bring the country back to where it started. The author thoroughly investigated past pitfalls where people like Mr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari failed at their job of bringing democracy to their countries. I also like how the author created a list of qualities that each failed leader had, and these were those who "wax eloquent about democracy and moderation, hold advanced degrees and speak English." I think that this article does a good job of pointing out how the United States intervenes in many global issues like the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East, and then attempts to put in leaders for those countries, which clearly shows how the United States is trying to do what is best for the United States only and how this country is out to protect itself and its interests in order to become more powerful.
Ben Pleat
ReplyDeleteWorld History Pd. 6
I thought this article was really fascinating as it really was closely related to the situation I am currently researching in Egypt. The United States truly must be very cautious and prudent when choosing who to head the tentative government; failure to chose effective leaders has in the past led to totalitarian regimes that promoted anything but democracy and free elections.
What really stood out to me is how the US endorsed many leaders such as Tantawi and Thaci. Instead of promoting democracy, Hashim Thaci took advantage of his position in the interim government and went on to swindle an election to make himself to prime minister.
It is really vital that leaders like Barack Obama scratch deeper below the surface and really understand whom they put in charge of the interim government. As we have seen, such decisions tend to be more than just temporary and sometimes may pave the way to the future of the respective country.
Superficial qualities must be put aside and the real question must be answered with certainty: will this leader promote free elections and follow up to promises? All in all, this article really was interesting and shed light on how the decisions should be made during tumultuous times in Southwest Asia. For now, all we can do is wait and hope that all plays out well.
Ben Pleat
ReplyDeleteWorld History Pd. 6
I thought this article was really fascinating as it really was closely related to the situation I am currently researching in Egypt. The United States truly must be very cautious and prudent when choosing who to head the tentative government; failure to chose effective leaders has in the past led to totalitarian regimes that promoted anything but democracy and free elections.
What really stood out to me is how the US endorsed many leaders such as Tantawi and Thaci. Instead of promoting democracy, Hashim Thaci took advantage of his position in the interim government and went on to swindle an election to make himself to prime minister.
It is really vital that leaders like Barack Obama scratch deeper below the surface and really understand whom they put in charge of the interim government. As we have seen, such decisions tend to be more than just temporary and sometimes may pave the way to the future of the respective country.
Superficial qualities must be put aside and the real question must be answered with certainty: will this leader promote free elections and follow up to promises? All in all, this article really was interesting and shed light on how the decisions should be made during tumultuous times in Southwest Asia. For now, all we can do is wait and hope that all plays out well.
After i read this editorial, I was surprised by the fact that the Untied States has great influence on selecting who rules between the collapse of an authoritarian regime and holding of election. I knew that the U.S. has impact on other affairs, such as the economy,and some what political. However, I never thought that other country look a upon U.S., to choice there leader. From now on I'll never look at the nation the same way as before. Also, now I learned that the U.S. has a affect on other country too in there government.
ReplyDelete-Ed Wu
I think it's pretty nice how the United States is getting involved to help out struggling countries stabilize their government. They are trying to pick out the best candidate(s) for the position(s) of running a country. However, I think this might cause further tensions in the future. I think the people who are being forced out of power might find some way to get back at the U.S. government, and that is obviously not good. Nonetheless, I suppose if it's to help out a struggling country, it might be worth it.
ReplyDelete-I.Y. Period 6
I find it quite interesting how the United States finds it necessary to have to step in whenever another country is going through some turmoil. I understand that the United States is in the P5 and yada, yada, yada, but that does not mean that the United States provides aid to others even when not asked for. Yes, sometimes our actions lead to the better, but many times it leads to more turmoil. And the cause for this is simple- we push forth an educated and Westernized among a group of people (and I know I am being politically incorrect and stretching the truth slightly)who are not too learned and are still true to their non-Westernized ways. Therefore by using this power over the others/ eliminating opponents the United States' decision takes a turn for the worse. I believe that the United States has no right to decide what kind of governement/ leader is good and what is bad- unless asked for, aid should not be given. It is necessary for us to clean up our own mess, before we try to clean up the mess of others'.
ReplyDeleteK.Suri (pd. 6)
Jeff per. 6
ReplyDeleteI don't particularly understand the article but I sense negative feelings toward Obama from the author of the article. He expresses that Obama used more power to control a foreign problem than bush. He also talks about Egypt and the political leaders of the past we have given seats to and they were described not as good leaders.
This article helped me learn just how much influence an outside nation like the U.S. can have on nations undergoing revolution. Although an outside force may elect only a temporary leader, that leader may be corrupt and just completely mess up the nation. This particular article showed that putting a leader into power just because he or she supports democracy doesn't necessarily guarantee that that leader will rule that way. As was the case in many nations, lots of leaders actually had shady backgrounds but were still instilled into power by the U.S. I realized that this is also the case for Libya, Egypt and the other nations going through revolution today. Without properly choosing a good leader that'll support democracy, that nation will constantly be going through political change.
ReplyDelete-Austin
Period 6
The US has a huge influence on picking the leaders for a new government.Although the US may have good intentions, allowing the US to "pick" leaders may be a mistake. Countless times, leaders say that they will rule with the people's wishes in mind, but they focus more on retaining their own power.
ReplyDelete-Joshua Jang period 6
It is surprising that although the United States is struggling economically, they still have an influence on foreign leaders. They play a huge role in who comes into power in foreign countires such as Egypt and Libiya. However, i feel that it is wrong that the Unites States influence other countries. The United States promotes democracy and voting, but when it comes to other countries, they always invade the privacy and influence the country. In many ways, the United States is like a dictatorship. It rules over the other countries like a father would rule over his grown son. I think that the United States should focus internally and fix their own economic problems before helping other countires.
ReplyDeleteVihar Shah and Adam Hakimian
Period 6 World
It's amazing to see how much power and influence the United States has on the rest of the world. They get to choose everything and rule over other countries and other countries rely on us. We have the greatest power in the world but we don't always make the best decisions for other countries and sometimes we worsen a situation.
ReplyDeleteValerie Harrison
Period 6
Jordan Babajanian
ReplyDeleteWe're always pushing for democracy in countries around the world but we never succeed achieving it. Also so many countries around the world are still being ruled by a monarchy and many people are rebeling against their rulers because they've been in power for so long and want a change. For example, this has been going on in Egypt for a while now and we've stopped helping when we're allies with them.
I dont reallu understand the aritcle but the thing that I got out of it was that Obama is using more forgien power than President Bush did. the citizens of the US dont like that Obama uis doing this to other countries
ReplyDeleteRyan Orlando per 6
Elisabeth Lee
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
It's actually interesting to know that the US. is stepping in whenever another country is in trouble and how, how much power they hold. Also, many leaders have been not trying to help their countries, but to just remain in power and silencing their opponents. But the US. is most focusing on transitioning from authoritarianism to democracy on other countries and, well, fail because the leaders don't have skill to protect their countries from enemies within the government.
its funny how the US always steps in to help a country in turmoil. even when they dont want it. and it has NO impact on us.maybe its because the US is in teh p5 but, as self centered as it sounds, we need to take care of ourselves before we look at others.and i get that the US likes to be the international police of sorts, but we honestly cant keep up with all that goes on. and its understandable that DEMOCRACY is GOOD. i think. but honestly, some places just dont want or need us. its better to leave them alne until they ask for help or threaten us or our allies. that way we can spread democracy and not be seen as monsters. maybe if we took on one issue at a time, we'd have a better chance at succeding. but then theres always the counter argument taht that is what we did with hitler and look what happened, but that is when the other countries should help. the world cant expect us to spread out and be the superhero. its just not possibel and it wont happen. Khusbu P
ReplyDeleteThis can relate to the U.S involvement in European affairs before the Cold War, and I agree that it does not affect us. But I think that democracy can have a good effect on the countries, for it brought down totalitarian regimes and replaced them with leaders the people want. However, it is very difficult to find a proper leader. Eventually many of these leaders will want to have more power, which does not help the country at all. This is a very risky business, so president Obama "has to seek out the right qualities."
ReplyDelete-Kevin Yu World 6
What I got from this article was that the United States is trying to spread democracy thoughout the world by letting other countries have the people choose who they want to govern. However, the United States has a big impact on who will be elected. Doing this isn't always a good thing because the leaders aren't always for the people and many times are just trying to keep power, which causes turmoil and protest in other countries.
ReplyDeleteMark Ginter pd.6 Mr. Kramer