Monday, April 12, 2010

War on Terrorism Blog

What is the point of The War on Terror? Well, it’s obviously supposed to end terrorism, right? This is more or less correct. From what I gather, The War on Terror aims to destroy terrorist organizations, protect our country’s citizens and others from these terrorists and aid other countries by strengthening their governments so said terrorists can not control an entire country.
In my opinion, The War on Terror was necessary, even before the September 11 attacks. During the Clinton Administration, the many bomb attempts and attacks should have pressed Clinton to declare war, but instead he tried a more subtle approach. This obviously did not work. When a terrorist plants a bomb in the parking deck below one of the most important buildings in the country, you don’t just let them off with a warning. When a terrorist tries to blow up one of the busiest airports in the country, you don’t just sit around waiting for what comes next. American Embassies had been bombed, we had been targeted and all we did was start Operation Infinite Reach, a program which hardly did anything, and often acted upon illegitimate evidence.
Finally, after so many were killed and shocked on September 11, George W. Bush declared War on Terrorism. Why was this necessary? Well, for one thing, it showed we were serious about what happens to our country and we have enough guts to do something about it. To me, that may have even been one of the most important reasons at the start; before this, we had barely done anything in retaliation and the terrorist attacks just kept coming. They were clearly not intimidated.
This war was necessary because although, as others have continuously stated in their blog entries, the target of the war is vague, but we have strong convictions as to why we are fighting this war. If the US was to just sit back and watch, not only would our oil be in jeopardy (which is apparently at top priority for many uninformed Americans) but our entire country and the Middle East would be as well. These terrorists’ organizations are powerful; they can do irreparable harm. Now, I think that it would be nice if we could bring this war to its conclusion, but now is apparently not the time.
I think the necessity of this war is proved by the fact that Obama, who campaigned that he was going to immediately pull out of Iraq and end the War, actually decided to send MORE troops and continue the fight. This says a lot because Obama had to exert courage and go against the views of many of his supporters to make this decision. This says a lot because it proves that there is a lot more going on in this war than we know about; otherwise someone with the strong conviction that we should pull out wouldn’t have made this decision. Granted it took him a while but he must have been briefed on some terrifying, stuff, right?


  1. I like a lot of Julia's points within this blog entry. First off, she was very well informed about previous attempts at preventing terrorism during the Clinton era. I agree that we, as a country, sat back a little too long before we finally decided to act upon a horrific event, 9/11. This was definitely the right decesion to make, as Julia states. I agree that one of the main reasons we must continue to occupy the Middle East is because of our oil concerns. And I agree with Julia's view of Obama about how courageous he was to turn his decesion about removing soldiers. With his new legislation about alternative energy and new drilling programs, it seems as if eventually they will be removed as our dependence on oil lessens. Overall, I agree that the war on terrorism is mostly justified for multiple reasons.

  2. I must say I completely agree with what Julia is saying here. Many people have been regretfully left in the dark on this subject. Unlike many of the other blogs, she can see there is a clear direction Bush was taking in his war on terror. Without his necessary actions, we would have been left to the terrorists' demands.
    Although it is true Clinton took a more subtle approach, this was probably the right decision for the time. It took a while to truly figure out the terrorist aims. Granted, he could have done a lot more for the safety of our country. However, I can understand the hesitant gestures of this past president.
    The part about Obama's policies regarding the war support Julia's claims that this war is absolutely necessary. This entry ties in all the past campaigns regarding the war and she uses them to further prove her points. This is extremely well written. And it's blue. It's hard to do much better than that. Great blog entry.

  3. I completely agree with Julia in this blog and I think she made some very good points to support her argument. She did a good job in providing information that many people might not know about when she talks about previous attacks and the Clinton administration. The decision to engage in war was probably a little too late. We, as a country, should have retaliated after the first act of terrorism rather than waiting untill thousands of Americans died in the Spetember 11 attacks. The war was necessary to protect the lives of innocent civilans, and even though many people ridicule Bush for his decisions, he made the necessary ones. This war is not only about terrorism; as Julia pointed out, it is also about oil. The US needs the Middle East and it is important to protect these vital resources. She closes her blog nicely by including an example of how Obama is dealing with this war. He inquired a big problem when he took office and he is doing what he thinks is best for the US, despite it not being what he promised in his campaign.

  4. I defiantly side with Julia in this argument that about the necessity being present with the War On Terror. Obama did say he was going to pull the troops out and create change if he was elected. Well today there is more troops stationed in the Middle East, there is higher tension present between America and middle eastern countries, and there is no present hint of troops being pulled out soon. I do grant though that Obama is not clearly going against what he promised to his voters about pulling the troops out. There is talk about the troops being out by 2011 but Julia did say that he immediately sent more in. This just shows that a common American citizen can not really capture the true reason of why we are in there still till he or she opens their minds and eyes to capture the whole picture.

    Julia talks about the war being necessary to protect our oil interest and America showing ti wouldn’t just sit back and watch. I think that she could have linked this possible sitting back and watching action to September 11 stated in the paragraph before this one. It was an absolute necessity that America responds to this attack so that we could revenge the dead ones at the site of the attack as well as preventing future attacks. If America just sat back and watched we would open ourselves up to future attacks by making the terrorist thin they can do whatever they want to us without any retaliation.

    Julia’s argument is well put. She uses many facts to back her position of the war being necessary by showing. Here blog flows with each paragraph with its own ideas and facts but they all relate to her overall message.

    One thing that she could have done to make it even stronger was add to her statements about how Americans don’t understand the true reason new are still at war. She uses the fact about how Obama probably learned more about the war, which caused him to send more troops, but Julia could have added that most of the anti-war citizens probably do not see the whole picture. This could undermine any attempt by a critic who believed this war is not necessary by taking out the fact that so many people are against it. This argument could basically invalidate this known fact by explaining that Americans can simply just no comprehend the whole situation

    I also like how her writing is unique by being blue.

  5. It seems that Julias writing, perhaps aided by the blue font, has drawn student comments like a light draws bugs. And I am apparently one of those bugs. The point of this was not to compare julia's writing to a bug trap, because in my opinion it is a quality entry, or students to bugs, but the large number of response comments deffinately caught my attention.

    Like the four previous students who posted a reply I agree with Julia's argument. She establishes credibility early in her entry by being able to state exact dates and organizations. Her comparison of the United States to a older student who steps in to defend a younger child my not be completely original but it is certainly effective. Similarly, her clear satement of belief that the United States was very justified in entering the war gains reader support and understanding of her argument.

    I agree that it was necessary for the United States to become actively, and violently, involved in the middle east in order to insure that terrorists were discouraged from further attacks on American soil. If troops had not been sent then terrorist groups all around the world would start planning their attacks because it would appear that the United State would not rise to protect what is known as the land of the free and the home of the brave. If we refused to fight back when an enemy attacked we would no longer be the home of the free or the brave.