Answer the following questions:
1. Why has John Kerry been in the Middle East for the past week?
2. Why are some countries in the Middle East hesitant about helping the US fight ISIS?
3. Why will President Obama not allow Syria to become our ally in fighting ISIS if one of ISIS's headquarters is in Syria?
4. How does Obama's pledge to fight ISIS go against his previously-published stance on fighting terrorism?
5. Who is Susan Rice? How does she describe the plan to combat ISIS?
6. In your opinion, what should America's course of action be when it comes to fighting ISIS in particular?
7. In your opinion, what should America's role be in the Middle East in general? There is so much fighting and violence there, should America be less involved or more involved in the everyday actions of the area, or is America currently involved as much as it should be?
MacKenzie Jones
ReplyDelete1) So he could collect support for military action against the Islamic state.
2) Because defeating the Islamic State could give Iran more scope to exert its authority.
3) He has ruled them out for terrorizing its citizens supposedly.
4) His foreign policy lacks decisiveness and drove home the connection between terrorism in the Middle East and US national security.
5) She's a National Security Adviser; she explained it as a counterterrorism plan that will be sustained and will take time.
6) Well I personally think they all need to first of all have never started anything in the first place. I'm not 100% sure how this whole hatred between the two started in the first place but it should be resolved by being civilized human beings not acting like a bunch of violent barbarians. But the past actions of each fighters sides will never be forgotten, and will be used against each other if needed for some reason. "Talking it out" will sadly never be an option with todays people because apparently violence is the only answer, but they could at least try to make a compromise. Not for the specific people concerned in the matter but for all the people who are standing by watching all of this go down and may possibly be harmed although it wasn't their decision to attack/fight anyone, so they need to REALLY think about peoples safety before they make these decisions.
7) I believe that the U.S. should be less involved then they already are. Yes the citizens over there need help and are in serious danger when they're doing nothing wrong but our soldiers are actually putting them in even more danger and more people in danger as well. Because that's actually a risk for us over here because they obviously don't care for us and our troops are getting in the middle of their business/fight and they might pull something in America because they don't want us over there. For example, as teachers always say "stay out of their business and in your own" this is that exact same situation, but obviously more extreme, and if we continue to push and push them they're going to be tired of it and go to the extreme. Yes our troops trying to spread peace over there and stop the fights are nice and everything but guess what, the people doing the damage didn't ask for our help. Don't put the people who are innocent at an even bigger risk than before, because that's exactly what our troops are doing even though they're only trying to help, they need to think hard first from everyone's point of view. Let them be, and work it out them selves instead of interfering.
1.)To find people to support for military action.
ReplyDelete2.)There is a deep distrust of the U.S. in that region.
3.)He ruled it out as a partner because it would be terrorizing its citizens.
4.)Back In 2012, President Obama stated something to the extent of we(American Soldiers) aren't fighting the terrorists themselves, we're fighting people that engage in terrorism. Now however, "we" are fighting the terrorists themselves, in what is being called a "counter terrorism operation".
5. )She is the National Security Adviser. She stated that " ...this is a counter terrorism operation that will take time. It will be sustained."
6.) Ummmmm, I don't really know. I know that I'm not one for war, the thought of it scares me. I think that President Obama and whoever the leader of ISIS is should meet and talk and agree on something.
7.) I think that Americans should be more involved and provide as much protection as possible. Never know when you're going to need an ally, or a friend.
Grace Singley
ReplyDelete1.John Kerry has been in the Middle East for the past week to help support military actions led by the US against the Islamic state.
2. Some countries in the Middle East are unsure about helping the US fight ISIS because they believe that it will give power to other people or places such as Iran and Iraqi Kurds.
3. Barack Obama decides to eliminate Syria from helping because he believes Syria is terrorizing its citizens.
4. Obama's pledge to fight ISIS doesn't back up his opinion on fighting terrorism and he's indecisive about it.
5. Susan Rice is a National Security Adviser and she says that this is the plan to combat ISIS. She explains that we will join with a political plan to help support government in Iraq, and also we will encourage the Sunni characteristics in Iraq to take the fight to ISIIL.
6. I think that America should increase our military forces and strongly protect our borders when it comes to fighting ISIS.
7. I think that right now America is involved a lot with helping other countries and we should be less involved with helping others and worry about our country.
Makenzie Taylor
ReplyDelete1. John Kerry has been in the Middle East for the past week to gain support for military action against the Islamic State.
2. Some countries feel as though they need to be circumspect in their decision.
3. Obama describes Syria as terrorizing its citizens.
4. President Obama's previously published stance on fighting terrorism was to use war. But now since the ISIS matter he wants to use a sustained counterterrorism campaign.
5. Susan Rice is a National Security Adviser. She describes the plan to combat ISIS a counterterrorism operation.
6. Whatever the course of action may be, they should take the best route to ensure the safety of the American people. I believe they should be very cautious in dealing with a group like ISIS.
7. I do think that it is a good thing to help the US allies when they are going through really tough situations. However, we should focus on improving our country to make it the best we can before we dive into the trials and troubles of other nations. It is not our job to jump into someone else's mess when we as a country don't even have our own problems sorted yet. I think that what goes on in other countries should be that country's responsibility. But if there is a situation that a lot of people are suffering from, help from allied countries may be needed. In this case about ISIS, I do think that we should stop the group, but we shouldn't try and make it OUR job. America is always trying to be a hero.
Carter Billings 3rd (1 To try and get support for military action against the Islamic State. (2 They are hesitant because defeating the Islamic State could empower Iran to exert its authority. (3 He will not ally with Syria because they are terrorizing their citizens. (4 He is trying to gain support from other countries in fighting ISIS instead of solely America fighting. (5 She is the National Security Advisor, she describes it as a sustained counterterrorism campaign. (6 I think that ISIS is a problem that needs to be dealt with immediately. ISIS has killed American citizens, in doing so America needs to handle the situation as they would with any other threat to National Security which is eliminate the threat swiftly and forcefully. (7 America has a threat on there hands, once we deal with this ISIS situation I believe that we should back off and stay out of The Middle East. Countries in The Middle East I feel are using America as a crutch in some situations. I do not agree with countries killing innocent civilians, but I think at some point a country has to say enough and deal with the task at hand. America can continue to help supply countries that fight these organizations that are harming people I just think that America should stop sending our troops into The Middle East.
ReplyDeleteAlex Turner 3rd Period
ReplyDelete1. to drum up support for military action against the Islamic State
2. They did not want to get involved with a fight until it was necessary
3. Because it would terrorize the citizens and put them at risk even more
4. Defeating the Islamic State could give Iran more scope to exert its authority.
5. National security adviser. She doesn't think we are going to go straight to war it will take time.
6. I think that we should send in secret agents near there living quarters and document how many people live and come there. After a year or so come up with a plan of attack we might not kill all of ISIS but at least their leaders.(Yes I relive I stole this idea from Zero Dark Thirty.)
7. I think as Americans in the home of the brave and free we feel obligated to help citizens in the Middle East with the struggles they have to go through with terrorists living in there country. But I don't that we should get our soldiers involved until we are sure of what we are getting ourselves into.
James Smelley
ReplyDelete1. To "drum up support" for military action.
2. Because of "intersecting allegiances and strategic claims.
3. They were "terrorizing" their citizens.
4. He didn't want to become involved in terrorism affairs before, and now he is.
5. The National Security Advisor. She says it will be a counter terrorism attack that will take time and be sustained.
6. I think that America shouldn't become involved in ISIS unless they are protecting America.
7. America should definitely be much less involved in secular affairs like terrorism unless it is protecting herself. This country was supposed to be built on the ideals of freedom and isolationism. America shouldn't care about anyone else, only itself.
Sydney Emmons 3rd pd.
ReplyDelete1. To raise support for our future attacks on the Islamic States.
2. Because if we defeat Islamic States, then it will give Iran more scope to exert it authority.
3. Because if Syria helps then they will be "terrorizing their citizens" if they try to destroy ISIS.
4. It's counterterrorism because Obama wants to stop terrorism but we are about to destroy people.
5. She is a National Security Adviser and she thinks this is a counterterrorism campaign and it will be sustained.
6. I think they should start acting soon and get many trusted allies and attack before things get even more out of hand. I personally don't like the idea of killing people, because i dont believe in the death penalty, and hurting people, etc. But, this situation is getting a little out of control, since they are threatening our country and beheading innocent people. So, we need to take action, and we may have to take drastic measures in this case.
7. I think America has gotten way to involved in other countries and this is causing us many issues. We kind of need to keep our nose out of things for awhile so we can take care of our own country first. We have enough problems in this country, let alone others.
Emily Perry:
ReplyDelete1. John Kerry has been in the Middle East to raise support for the US-led military action against the Islamic State.
2. Some counties in the Middle East are hesitant about helping the U fight ISIS because there are conflicting interests between the countries in the area which makes them want to cautious. Some countries do not trust the US.
3. Obama will not allow Syria to become our ally against ISIS because he believes that they terrorize there citizens.
4.Obama's pledge to fight ISIS goes against his former actions of pulling American troops out of Iraq and reducing US military presence in that area.
5. Susan Rice is the US National Security Advisor. She states that the plan against ISIS will be a counterterrorism action that will be sustained over time.
6. America's course of action should include covert operations to secretly "obliterate" ISIS members and leaders. We should also provide intelligence and strategic assistance to the Iraqi government.
7. YES! America should be as involved in the Middle East because they should help protect human rights. If we are not involved in that area, terrorism will flourish. I believe that while the US is involved in the Middle East, it might bring a quicker solution to increase our military presence there.
Lorenzo B. Winston:
ReplyDelete1. John Kerry has been in the Middle East for the past week to drum up assistance for military action against the Islamic States.
2. Some countries in the Middle East hesitant about helping the US fight ISIS because intersecting allegiances and strategic aims mean some Arab countries feel they must tread cautiously.
3. President Obama will not allow Syria to become own ally in fighting ISIS if one of ISIS’s headquarters’ in Syria because he describes it as terrorizing its citizens.
4. Obama pledging to fight ISIS goes against previously-published stance on fighting terrorism because he says he wants the American to fight against the Islamic States but his administration is making the case that it will be a different kind if military campaign.
5. Susan Rice is the National Security Guard Adviser. She says that frankly, this is a counterterrorism operation that will take time. It will be sustained.
6. In my opinion I think that America’s course of action should be to just not fight period. There isn’t even enough detail on the purpose of this war, or whatever you want to call it.
Also, if the Middle East isn’t that interested into being included in this war, then they should not be forced into it.
7. I think that America’s role in the Middle East is to tell them not to go into war and to remain calm, and peaceful. Let the Islamic States act first, then it would be time for them to take action. I think that America should be beyond more involved in the everyday activities that go on in this country. In my opinion, they aren’t even doing as much as they need to to take action for our country. They don’t try to make the bad situations any better and they worry about the unnecessary.
Lynsey Simpson
ReplyDelete1. to drum up support for military action against the Islamic State, which he outlined a speech Wednesday.
2. Because defeating the Islamic state could give Iran more scope to exert its authority.
3. terrorizing its citizens
4. because his foreign policy lacks decisiveness and most Americans want to take action.
5. National Security Advisor; counterterrorism that will sustain ISIS.
6. We should get special forces to find ISIS' primary headquarters, and basically do what they did to find Osama Bin Laden when we went in to have him killed.
7. We should be less involved because if we get ourselves to involved then they will start to trust us more and try to use us as an allying country and everyone will believe we are hypocritical for announcing the sustainment of the Middle Eastern people, and then being associated with them as a primary ally would hurt Americas reputation.
Emily Keller
ReplyDelete1) to raise support for a US led military action against the Islamic state
2)intersecting alliances and strategic aims.
3)for terrorizing their citizens
4)he might militarize the situation
5) she's a National Security Adviser. "sustained counterterrorism campaign"
6)I think we should do whatever's necessary to protect our citizens.
7) I think we should mind our own business more. the middle east has had our help for years and they haven't shown appreciation. we should stick to the concerns of our own country first.
Kayla Fincher
ReplyDelete1. He was raising support for US-led military action against the Islamic state
2. there is deep distrust for the US in the region
3.it is terrorizing the citizens if the united states
4.he said it would endanger the citizens of America
5.a national security advisor
6. I think we should take a stand because it is a threat and we don't want another incident like 9/11 to happen again
7.i think we are involved enough in the middle east we don't want to have more violence and fighting than we are already having
Josie Parham
ReplyDelete1- To recruit more military action against the Islamic State.
2- They do not trust the U.S.
3- They have word that they terrorize their citizens.
4- Obama wants to become militarily involved even though he has said in a recent speech on the ISIS problem that he will not permit us to do so.
5- A National Security Adviser, she says that is a counter-terrorism operation that will take time but will be sustained.
6- I think we shouldn't involve our self unless we have a direct threat because we do not need to put the country and lives in danger if we aren't even being targeted.
7- I think that we should have a peaceful role in the Middle East and I think we do not need to be any more involved because we already are pretty involved and I think that we have it under pretty good control.
Ke-Anna' Rich: 1. He was sent by the president to help support military action.
ReplyDelete2. Some countries don't trust the US and some are just afraid of the outcome.
3. He thinks it would "terrorize the citizens".
4. America can't help the middle-eastern people if they don't make the decision to
fight back.
5. Rice is the National Security Adviser; she says that the plan for ISIS will be
"sustained counterterrorism".
6. I think we should try our best to work things out, without any violence.
7. I think America is involved enough. We are trying our best to fix these problems that
are not, as of yet, linked directly to us.
1. To bring support for military action \
ReplyDelete2. It could give Iraq more opritunity to exert authority\
3. Because of the possibility of terrorizing its citizens\
4. He said this is a different type of act and will be handled differently \
6. I think that we should look at our options and find as much information to find out where they are and attack them head on \
7. I think that we should be looking to defeat them because we need to protect our allies and their countries because they could make there here to the u.s and we need to be behind our allies. And no because there is so much more we could do right now we are basically doing the least possible.}
1.John Kerry has been in the middle east to gain military support against ISIS.
ReplyDelete2. Some countries are hesitant about helping fight against ISIS because they don't want it to affect their unity with other countries, also some countries have a deep distrust of the US.
3. Obama does not allow Syria to become our ally because they are prone to terrorize their citizens.
4. Obamas pledge to fight ISIS goes against his previous stance on fighting terrorism because he is not really taking a stand against this terrorism, he is just going in circles.
5.Susan Rice is a national security advisor for the US and she thinks counterterrorism should be sustained and take time.
6. In my opinion, I think America should fight against ISIS because we are basically showing that the US is not as strong as it should be and that we don't care that much about what is going on since not a lot of action has taken place, making us vulnerable to more attacks on US citizens.
7.America should be involved in the middle east. We should be a model of caring nation and look after our allies so they might do the same when we are in war. With the great military we have, we should help countries that need it.
Abbey Kate Gregory
Jaida Minor
ReplyDelete1. John Kerry raised support for US-led military action against the Islamic State
2. These countries are hesitant because they believe Obama's cautious steps is "leading from behind"
3. Obama ruled them out as a partner for what he described as terrorizing its citizens.
4. It can cause distrust for the United States region by having communications with the same "9/11" people. By defeating the Islamic State, it could give Iran more scope to exert its authority.
5. Susan Rice is the National Security Adviser and thinks this is a counter terrorism operation that will take time.
6. Pair up with somebody else and defeat them also, go quickly but the right way!
7. Not much , they shouldn't really get in any mess that they haven't started. But , they should help out the people in need, WITHOUT causing drama between countries..
Abbye Blocker 3rd. Period
ReplyDelete1. John Kerry has been in the Middle East this past week to drum up military action against the Islamic State.
2. Some countries in the Middle East are hesitant about helping the US fight ISIS because it could endanger the national unity.
3. President Obama will not allow Syria to become our ally because of the connection between terrorism in the Middle East and national security.
4. Obama said that this will be a different type of military campaign.
5.Susan Rice is a National Security Adviser.
6. In my opinion, I think that America's course of action to fighting ISIS should be to eradicate them completely and establish a peaceful environment in the Middle East.
7. I think that America's role in the Middle East should be to help the needy people who are not causing harm or associated to any terrorist group. I also think that America should be less involved with the everyday actions in the area because more of our own soldiers are dying every day or getting hurt. There are other ways to be involved other than fighting to help the needy people in an area.
1. To drum up support for military action against The Islamic State
ReplyDelete2. It might empower the Iraqi Kurds
3. They are said to terrorize their citizens.
4.
5. National Security Advisor. She describes it as somehting that will take time.
6. To be honest, i really dont know,
7. I think that america is as involved as it should be and i dont really understand all of what is going on so I really cant say for sure that any of the three options are ones that i really want.
Andrea Martinez
Tyler Dempsey
ReplyDeleteI- He's there to "drum up support" against ISIS, the Islamic extremists
II- Because of the web of alliances with these Middle-Eastern countries
III- He won't allow this because he says that it will only end up making the citizens unhappy.
IV- Well, he said he was going to take troops out of the Middle East, but now with a different sort of military campaign, he only concludes that this is a simple counter-terrorism operation
V- Susan Rice is the National Security Adviser; she says we'll have to take a long course action to combat these children of anarchy
VI- I think we could do what we're doing now. I see no other alternative that would be better than it. We can't ignore it, but we can't declare yet another war in the Middle East.
VII- I personally think that America should be less involved in the Middle East. Instead of trying to slam our fist into a barren desert half a world away, we should strengthen our own defenses and national security. Jumping into worlds of redundant war, conflicting religions, and separate ideologies doesn't sound very appealing to me.
Leigh Davis
ReplyDelete1.To drum up support for the military against the Islamic State
2.It gives ISIS more scope to authority and the other countries are scared of what they'll do.
3.It could endanger Syria and the US as a whole and impower the groups.
4.Technically, he could start "terrorizing citizens" so to speak and he pledged to fight terrorism not put his people in danger.
5.Susan Rice is a National Security Adviser
6.I personally think that America's course of action to fight ISIS needs to be thoroughly and strategically planned to make sure as little people or citizens are negatively harmed or involved.
7.Personally, I don't understand why America is involved in so many things, but in this particular situation I actually think that we are involved and are trying to make a difference positively. Maybe, we could become a little more involved and make a more positive, bigger difference.
Troy Banks
ReplyDelete1. He was discussing action against terrorist group ISIS in the middle east with U.S. allies.
2. Because they are near to ISIS controlled territories.
3. Because Bashar Al-Assad supposedly attacked his citizens with chemical weapons
4. I believe President Obama previously said he wanted no further conflict in the middle east under any circumstances, though I am unsure. The difference between what I think he said and his new agenda would be that he now wants to stem ISIS before it grows rather than waiting to see what they do next.
5. She is a National Security Adviser for the U.S., and she says that there will be an untimely counter-terrorism campaign.
6. I'm neutral on the matter, because I don't believe anything the mainstream media reports. In my opinion, there is no way to really know the truth about secular affairs such as this. For all we truly know the United Nations could be responsible.
7. I think that if things really are as they have been made out to be, then America should not be involved unless there is a confirmed threat to America. But even if a threat is confirmed, will the U.S. see to that the homeland remains safe? FDR was fair warned about Pearl Harbor, let it happen, and the U.S. went spiraling into World War 2. The Bush Administration was warned by England, Afghanistan, Egypt, Germany, Israel, France, Argentina, Italy, Jordan, and Russia about 9/11. Should Americans begin to question that which most blindly follow? I think so.
Olivia LeComte
ReplyDelete1. To gain support for military action against the Islamic state.
2. Because of conflicting allegiances and strategies they have to tread cautiously.
3. Because they terrorize their citizens.
4. If our allies don't know who to back then how can we
5. Susan Rice is a national security adviser and describes this as a counter terrorism operation.
6. I think that we should do everything in our power to stop the murder of innocent people. I am not anywhere near a military expert, but i think that that should always be the number one priority.
7. The U.S. is so involved in what is going on over there now, it might be foolish to leave. The U.S. went over there to try to stop the war and violence. We very well may have done much more harm then we did help. The U.S. went in with good intentions but did not succeed and now we are in this mess. The U.S. is so involved it is probably impossible to back out until this threat is neutralized.
1. John Kerry has been in the Middle East for the past week to garner support for military action against the Islamic State.
ReplyDelete2. Because of various political reasons and an overall distrust of the United States.
3. Because Syria has terrorized it's citizens in the past.
4. The president was speaking about impending military action after he'd long been voicing concerns about re-involvement in the middle east.
5. Susan Rice is a National Security Adviser. She describes the plan as a sustained operation, no matter what we end up calling it.
6. I feel like it is possible to fight ISIS without bombs, as stupid and idealistic as it sounds. Think about it this way. American involvement in Iraq changed the country for the worst and made it unstable. Airstrikes, bombs, and military action won't somehow end radical thinking. Even with all of the threats made for the future and the beheading of American citizens, ISIS is currently not an immediate threat to the United States as a whole. Also, another thing to consider is how ISIS received weapons in the first place. I mean, where else would they get weapons like they have now if it weren't for the US occupying Syria like it has been? So, if we cut the access that ISIS has to the weapons and eliminate all sources of money they have coming in, it will definable contain the group for at least long enough for the US to form a coalition to restart Iraq and boot it on stable footing, as well as continuing negotiations with Syria.Humanitarian aid and education are what these people need, not mindless violence.
7. To be honest, I wish we as a nation had taken the first president of the United States' advice and stayed out of worldly matters all together. Sure, we could engage in politics of other countries, but there is not reason behind us being the voluntary police force of the world we've become today. But I guess it's far too late to even attempt to return to a time when that was possible. As a country, we are in too deep to turn back despite what anybody may say about the issue.
Batrina Reid
ReplyDelete1. This takes place at Redhill school in Stourbridge, England.
2. $38,695 was spent due to human error and fraud
3. Sean Montgomery is the Co-Founder and Engineer for SensorStar Labs.
4. They claim it will help by tracking students eye movement. I believe it will not because a student could be looking at the teacher and still lost in the subject. Just because they are making eye contact doesn't mean they understand the content.
5. The Arizona schools showed no improvement in test scores.
6. She was suspended because she did not want to wear her school badge so she would be tracked. No, I do not believe anybody should be tracked everytime they leave a class.
7. Schools should be able to use it for education programs, but not to invade a students privacy