1991 Gulf War - Operation Desert Storm

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HMTihLKYw4

After USSR sided with the United States, The Iraqis soon started to retreat the set the oil fields on fire. Kuwait oil is very important to United States, since that was where most of our oil had come from. This video is showing how difficult it was for the United States to maneuver around these oil reserves that have been just set on fire. The only way to stop the fire is to use lots of dynamite. However by using dynamite, numerous more problems can occur. Nevertheless, even with the Iraqis going to such drastic measure, we were still able to defeat them and end the war in a mere four days.

U.S. Policies in the Middle East, 1914-1991

Policies: 
          a. Cold War: Truman Doctrine:  $400 million foreign aid package to Turkey
and Greece, pledging for the U.S. to support governments resisting communism, and United States to step into the shoes of the British in the Middle East. 
          b.Oil: U.S. oil companies should look for oil over seas.
          c. Arab-Israeli Conflict:  Truman Doctrine, Nasser's Plan, and the Oil Embargo of 1973


1.) What are the effects of these two sets of policies on each other? (Cold War & Oil)
 The Truman Doctrine stated for "the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Which means that the U.S. should support the people that are against communism while they are being oppressed by another communist country. On the other hand, the U.S. oil companies said they should be looking and supporting new oil reserves overseas. The effect given off by these two policies together is saying that the United States should only support the new oil reserves if they are anti-communist or if they are being oppressed by an outside communist group.


2.) What are the effect of these two sets of policies on each other? (Cold War and Arab-Israeli Conflict)
During the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Truman Doctrine stated they would give a $400 million dollar foreign aid package, along with with United States willing to step into the shoes of the British in the Middle East. In addition, Nasser of Egypt was tempting both "super powers" to give money to his cause by telling them both that the other is giving more money, which ultimately results in both sides trying to beat the other. The effect from the policies of the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli Conflict are that the Cold War and trying to be, "the man," influences America's decision making process. The U.S. are willing to do anything to be the best and Nasser is using that to its fullest advantage by playing and tricking both super powers into giving Nasser and the alliance of Arab states money.


3.)What are the effect of these two sets of policies on each other? (Oil and Arab-Israeli Conflict)
In mid-October 1973, the Arab States decided to place an oil embargo on the United States. Having this decision collide with the U.S. policy to look overseas for new oil reserves did not result well. The effect of these two policies was a devastating U.S. economy. With the lack of oil, people in the U.S. were not able to heat their homes or fill up their cars with gas. The effect from these two policies is one the United States will not forget.

Arab Israeli Conflict

Image from Gary Varvel, Indiana -- The Indianapolis Star-News April 15, 2002

1. Meaning/Explanation
          This cartoon is representing the Palestinians and their new form of warfare, using suicide bombers. The Palestinians don't care who they have to kill to win and they believe that by dressing up kids as Israelis, they are able to achieve their political aims. They feel that they finally have a weapon that creates a balance of power with Israel, and maybe can defeat Israel. Ismail Haniya, a Hamas leader, once said in the Washington Post that Jews, "love life more than any other people, and they prefer not to die," so that makes Palestinian suicide bombers ideal for dealing with them.


2. Explain how it's connected to our learning in class.
             The Palestinians and the Arabs will go to any measure to defeat each other. They will go as far as to use children as suicide bombers, not caring what the consequences might be. In class, we discussed that these two opposing parties have been fighting against each other for over a century with conflicts that began with religious issues, land possession, society and politics. We also discussed the drastic measures they take so they can beat the other by whatever means necessary. In 1939, British attempted to strike a balance between Palestinians and Jews but their efforts failed to hold down the escalating tensions and it seems like no one can stop these two opposing sides.


3.Why is this meaningful? Does it make you sad, hopeful, angry, etc?
          This makes angry and upset because the kids shouldn't be directly involved in the issues that adults have the adults have to deal with.  Kids shouldn't be used as a weapon to solve the conflicts of their elders. This adults are mercilessly taking away innocent children's lives and they were probably tricked into doing something like this in the first place. Its not that the Palestinians are desperate, its that they actually want to win their independence in blood and fire. All they can agree on as a community is what they want to destroy, not what they want to build. Nevertheless, adults shouldn't involve their children in their business/personal lives; the children probably don't even know what their parents are talking about. Its upsetting that the only thing on the Palestinian's minds are to kill and win at whatever costs rather than paying attention to all the lives they are killing. This sort of western society is very different from America. Not to say that we're better, just that something should be done about this.

Reviewing Critical Junctures - Group 2

1. Explain why your document highlights a critical juncture of the Vietnam War.
Our document shows that for the South Vietnamese, our sudden withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North fifteen years before. For the United States, if we leave Vietnam, then this first defeat in our nation’s history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world. For us to withdraw from the vast amount of effort in Vietnam would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest.



2. What were the main goals of U.S. policy in Vietnam at the time your document was written?
We shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.


3. What were the main policy choices facing U.S. leaders at the time your document was written?
The main policy  choice facing U.S. leaders was the Nixon Doctrine. This policy was a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnamese people.


4. What policy choice was made regarding the issues considered in your document? How did the decision affect the course of the Vietnam War?

In the previous Johnson administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam.The president and his administration have only two choices open to them if they ever want to end this war. The president can order an immediate precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action. Or the United States can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement, if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization, if necessary.

Congressman Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions"

On December 22, 1847, President Polk requested possible resolutions on dealing with the Mexican War; Congressman Lincoln's resolutions were offered to the President. Lincoln suggested for President Polk to provide Congress with the exact (or "spot") location where American blood had been split and that was so to determine whether the U.S. should declare war or not. Lincoln's resolutions were a direct challenge to the power of the president's words, and it started a constant political power struggle between Whigs and Democrats. Lincoln, in this case, is in exactly the same position Senator Goldwater is in. Senator Goldwater also suggested a resolution to the President Johnson which did in fact stir conflict between the indecisive Republicans and Democratics.

Spanish-American War Essay Thesis

Thesis: The U.S. made bad decisions in the era of imperialism, which ended in inevitable results despite their good intentions.

Body Paragraph #1:
The U.S. officially declared war against Spain on April 23, 1898 with good intentions from the beginning. When first upon entering the war, America thought of their involvement as a way to preserve the rights of the Cuban people and to secure and maintain trading routes. The United States founded its country upon the idea of freedom, equality, speech, and democracy for all. We were not going to disregard the values and morals than made America what it is today. America has grown into the world power it is today, regardless of the bad decisions we had made, because of the tremendous amount of time we put into making sure our citizens' rights are fully secured and carried out. Despite the inevitable results based on bad decisions, the U.S. has done everything it can to ensure the best for its citizens.

Roosevelt vs. Obama's Views on Egalitarianism

Back in the 19th century, President Roosevelt stated his views on egalitarianism by saying, "Women should have equal rights with men." [Selection 8] Roosevelt personally believed that women should also be homemakers rather than having a job.

President Obama also recently expressed his views on egalitarianism when he was faced with the conflict of whether to build an Islamic Mosque near Ground Zero. His stated his views by saying, “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country… This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.” On the contrary, President Obama believed that it wouldn't be wise of build a Muslim Mosque near Ground Zero because it will stir conflict and upset many Americans who are still recovering from the tragedy of 9/11.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38613 

What the U.S. think of "others"

 What we think of "others"
In this article, its saying that the U.S. is trying to compromise with Iraq by saying that we'll put the prime minister of the country's choice in charge but then we'll tell them what to do. This is basically saying that we don't trust Iraq's decisions and ideas. It's also saying that we're afraid you'll mess up again so we're trying to fix your problems. And also, we are expected of them to just join over and follow use like we're some all mighty king and they're just local citizens who have to do as we say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/world/middleeast/10policy.html?_r=1&ref=world

What "others" think of us :

The Pakistani militant leader, Mr. Bahadur, said that there was a group dedicated in attacking the Pakistani government and he assumes America first because they think we know better for everyone.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/world/asia/12dronestrike.html?ref=world