Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Discussion The Discussion Questions in unit nine week look at the role of government, the economy, and people on peace and violence in the international system. The international system itself is often blamed for why we cannot achieve a less violent world. World Peace Edward Jackson 3/30/2013 11:02:01 PM What are the causes of conflict in the international system? How can the states and the global society work to resolve conflict situations? The main causes of conflict in the international system are competition for power on a global scale. Power can mean many things…sometimes different things to different countries. For instance, for countries like America, it is about having the greatest military power on the planet. For countries like Russia, it is about things being big and powerful…in the past have been big planes, big ships, and of course being the largest country on the planet. Some even say that the Russian stockpile of nukes was just posturing, basically playing the “big” game with America. I believe countries like China and India are more concerned with providing services and products to become powerful on the world stage. Countries like North Korea want to be recognized as a powerful nation; however their methods are somewhat tyrannical; they want to take the world by force. The end result is of course competition…but how countries arrive on the world stage can be on many different paths. How can we do and be better? We can coerce countries to be and play fair by forcing countries to comply with uranium laws, nuclear power plant laws, keeping countries like North Korea in check, and encouraging countries to join organizations like the NATO. Educating the countries how war and international conflict affect every country is a good start. There is a saying that no man is an island unto himself…well…that also works for countries; no country is an island unto itself; we all depend on one another. On the topic of “How international law and international organizations may serve to avoid or resolve international disputes,” that is indeed complex. Organizations like NATO and the United Nations can force “bad” countries to comply by asking member countries to pass sanctions or trade embargos on unruly countries…but when do they get involved, and when do they stay out of a country’s affairs are the difficult questions. I can only guess as the entire world becomes more and more endowed with nukes, it will only be a matter of time before one is setoff…perhaps even leading us into World War III. Quite scary really. I would hope the international organizations are working extra hard to spread peace. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: Causes Of Conflict In the International System? Edward Jackson 3/30/2013 11:13:05 PM Why should a nation like Haiti be treated equally? Because it’s the right thing to do. Unless you’re suggesting that only the powerful countries should rule the planet? Not only do I not like that idea, I believe it breeds resentment, and could possibly lead to international conflicts that can cause wide sweeping problems for even powerful countries like America. It wasn’t all that long ago when America was attacked by just a handful of terrorists. Many questions were raised about how this could happen, or why it happened. But believe this, people felt like they had been wronged in some way…terrorists aren’t born, but created. So we should include all nations in an effort to reduce international threats from those that believe they have been wronged or cheated in some way. It also builds trust and alliances with countries, which is only a good thing (especially if the majority of nations are at the table). ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: Causes Of Conflict In the International System? Edward Jackson 3/30/2013 11:23:47 PM Devin, you and I are on the same wavelength when it comes to the idea of socialism. It’s not a system that would work for us…but not because it’s a poor system, but because of humans; it’s humans that have corrupted such a wonderful ideology. I always wonder though…on the world stage…if America is going to maintain its strength. Both China and India are coming in like a freight train…supplying the world with cheap and large quantities of services and products. Where does that leave a country where we import more than we export? Not in a good place I say. We do have the most powerful military force of the planet; I wonder if we can just sell that? We need to bring manufacturing back to this country in a big way. I believe it’s the only way we’re going to maintain our global power status; military is good, services and products are better. On your final question, I would choose to be poor and happy, rather than rich and unhappy (and I have really). I have passed up opportunities to make more money…merely on the idea that I am happy with my life now. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: Carlson Post Unit 9 Edward Jackson 3/30/2013 11:36:21 PM Welcome to the world Lola Jane! You're right about religion, culture, and location; those can shape your recognition and perhaps even control your status on the global stage. For instance, if your country is a democracy, where Christianity is your main religion...you are perceived quite differently than a country that is ruled by a totalitarian government and has Islam as a religion. What I wonder, does it really matter? In the long run, why should your religion dictate your status on the world stage? Wouldn't it be better just to acknowledge countries based upon their deeds and not their beliefs? 99% of Muslims are peaceful, yet we associate Muslims with terrorism. Much of this has do with our media's lack of coverage of the "good" parts of Islam. We are basically shielded from the world, other than what makes the news when something violent happens. Do you think countries should just be judged on their international deeds? ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: World Peace Edward Jackson 4/1/2013 10:37:15 AM The sovereignty of states is probably the number one reason, but also as alliances are being made throughout the world, these alliances want to take a soft hand approach when trying to enforce international laws...for example, rather than the U.S. just smacking down an aggressive country (even though it may need it), we have to answer to the international community---call it international peer pressure to not be aggressive. So yes, it is sovereignty, but it is also having to answer for our actions, and those are the reasons why we have such limited power when trying to avoid international conflicts. Our book also says use military sparingly…which I totally agree with. The best way to handle international conflict (in the long run) is through diplomacy and peaceful action. We need to actively seek out more alliances around the world; perhaps we could start with Cuba. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: World Peace Edward Jackson 4/2/2013 11:41:27 AM If a serious diplomatic effort fails...then sometimes sanctions may be necessary. However, there should be time limits on sanctions; they shouldn't be forever. It should always be the United States' mission to establish peace. Period. We, as Americans, like to brag how great our country is...well greatness comes in many forms. The ability to bring peace to countries like North Korea, Iran, and Afghanistan should direct all our main efforts; not war; not military occupation; not world domination. On your question about sanctions, international sanctions are much harder to enforce. The best we can do is hope for our allies not to disagree with us when we impose sanctions. But like I said, we really should be trying to seek peace through diplomacy. We can start with Cuba. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page What are the difficulties of the current international system? What makes getting things done so difficult? How can it be changed, or should it stay just as it is? Explain your position! International Edward Jackson 3/31/2013 6:46:59 PM Peace The main difficulty of the international system is enforcement. For example, let’s say a country is not following international law; perhaps the country is invading a neighboring country. How exactly do you enforce peace? The country is obviously breaking international laws, severing treaties, maybe even blatantly being aggressive…what exactly can the international community do to bring peace? It’s harder than we can imagine, and many times the efforts of diplomacy fail. From our book, on pages 347-348, the authors mention organizations like the United Nations and NATO are large international communities whose main focus is understanding and applying international law. However our text does state that there is no organization that can actually stabilize all the troubles in the world. So where does that leave us? We have to learn to be more diplomatic. We need to keep emotions and extreme measures out of the international decision making processes. But most of all, especially for our country, we need to use military force “sparingly” (a term from book). Speaking as an American, and pointing out unilateralism, we need to do much better on the international front when it comes to treaties and trying to be peaceful. Our allies can’t be the enemy…and sometimes they are right. Right from our text, it states that the U.S. has a tendency to do things our own way…which isn’t always the best way because we lose allies. It really does seem like we like to strong arm other countries. So, should things change? Definitely. Things should change by less war, more diplomacy, and more peace. Period. We need to actively seek out treaties, a balance of power, and stop trying to force other nations to be like the United States. It’s okay for another country to have a different religion or a different culture. Nations should be judged on their international and global deeds, and not what god they worship. As far as enforcing international laws, if powerful countries like the U.S. became peaceful nations, I truly believe there would be less tyranny being bred inside countries like North Korea. Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Roskin, M. G., & Jones, W. S. (2010). Political Science: An Introduction (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Longman. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: The current international system Edward Jackson 3/31/2013 12:00:12 PM What you’re saying about the U.S. losing…is totally correct. The super power we once were was built around a few things. One was industrialism. Two was the military machine. The U.S. was an industrial powerhouse at one time…many said we were the most productive country in the world. Do you still think that is true? The world is changing around us, but the U.S. has lost its industry…and only maintains the war machine; the need for such an expensive machine is losing its value day by day. It won’t be long before the Chinese (and India for that matter) surge past us as the new super powers on the block. What can we do to still stay competitive? The solution is easier than you think…but will be nearly impossible to implement; we need to bring back industry. We need to put Americans back to work. Our obscene military size and bloated government cannot exist in its current form if we’re going to step into the future as a leader in economics. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: Difficulties of Nations Edward Jackson 3/31/2013 7:13:11 PM You nailed it; we need to figure out what North Korea wants, rather than just reacting to what they are doing. And, you know what? It’s that way pretty much everywhere. For example, Israel and the Palestinians…the West Bank and a people that just want a place to call home; we all react rather than do. The answer is to just redraw the map, move some people humanely, and provide international security to everyone involved. But what do we do? Nothing. We support hate, war, and violence by being oblivious. Once again, the international community and the U.S. has missed the mark. We’re not even trying to reach a solution that works for everyone. Israel, the U.S., and the international community have all drawn lines in the sand…and then we wonder why violence erupts almost monthly. Serious diplomacy is what we need…and from the highest authorities. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: The current international system Edward Jackson 3/31/2013 7:22:06 PM I understand your take on Fidel Castro, but do you really think we should still be punishing the whole country now? I believe we have made the decision to ban trade with Cuba because of the whole Bay of Pigs incident which made us look bad. So we struck back with a heavy hand...something I don't believe was right at all...but definitely needs to be fixed now. One poor leader doesn't make a country...and we are also punishing every single person in Cuba for the actions of a single person. It isn't right, and doesn't build trust with countries that are extremely close to us. A little history lesson, and you'll realize that Russia and Cuba should not ever be friends. We should do our best to make Cuba our ally, obviously. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: International Peace Edward Jackson 4/1/2013 10:46:53 AM I believe the main source of problems, from a U.S. perspective, is that we think other countries should be like us. We think they should be a democracy, their religion should be Christianity, and that their economics should be capitalism; how wrong we are on all accounts. We should be more concerned with how a country acts on and in the global markets. It's none of our business how a government choses to run their country. I wish I could speak from other countries' perspectives...I just don't know enough about them to make that call, which is exactly the stance the U.S. should take. Diplomacy and peace should be our only mission throughout the world. Our military should come and protect our borders...and the sovereignty of our own nation. We, as Americans, need to focus on fixing the integrity of our country; that means repairing the fabric of this country (economics, moral, education, and overall health). ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: Causes Of Conflict In the International System? Edward Jackson 4/2/2013 11:57:44 AM Which nations have nothing to offer? Your points of view seem highly contemporary. Meaning, what countries have to "offer" are cyclical; basic history tells us no country remains great forever, and that almost every country has had its period of greatness. So are you suggesting that only countries that are great today, should have a seat at the international table? It doesn't make sense. We have one planet; we have one global market; we have the potential to tap into a multitude of resources. It would only be logical that all nations would have a seat at the international table (for mere equality and resources), thus demonstrating to the world that there is no need for tyranny, and it will not be accepted. As more and more nations come and sit at the table, there will be strength in numbers. As more and more alliances are forged, the resources we do have can be better utilized. There would also be a certain international peer pressure for nations to contribute to the global market and perhaps even establish more peaceful nations...which, isn't this exactly what we want? Every nation has something to offer, even if they don’t know it yet. So, what I'm saying, don't be so almighty; there is a good chance that the United States may be one of these fallen nations in 20-30 years. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: The current international system Edward Jackson 4/2/2013 12:20:07 PM The United States dropping atomic bombs was the darkest day in American history. There is not a single international study that agrees with what the United States did. Your opinions seem like they have been formed by our own country's biased history and media. You think the bombs were good...because they "saved lives" (good one); when in reality, the Japanese were about to surrender due to the large amounts of deaths within their own ranks. As far as Black Rain, I don't let American movies shape my world knowledge...I try to focus on world history for that. The fact remains, we killed thousands of civilians...all in the name of the war machine. We struck back in retaliation and revenge rather than seeking diplomacy, and no matter what you say, it wasn’t the right to do. We suffer from the military industrial complex...and it’s not anything to be proud about. Our strength should come from diplomacy, not war. Right from our book, it states that unilateralism isn't a good thing. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: Unit 9: Political Actions Edward Jackson 4/2/2013 3:55:42 PM Yes and no. Yes the UN may be unsuccessful if it continues as a debating society (page 342). However, the UN could potentially harness the diplomatic power it does have by trying to better understand the types of national interests that exist in the world, and then actively working with countries (forming alliances and creating treaties) to create a stronger international community. I always try to side with equality...and organizations like the UN have the ability to accept countries (on equal standing), spread peace through diplomacy, and provide a cornerstone of support to the entire world. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page RE: The International System Today Edward Jackson 4/2/2013 4:10:38 PM International trade is on the upswing; meaning countries like China and India will produce more products and services than the United States ever produced. This means that global markets are seriously shifting in favor of the larger countries that produce more of everything. So, how will this affect international trade relations? It will change the political dynamics by shifting focus from the United States, to other countries that wield greater power on emerging markets. This really means that the United States power and influence will be significantly decreased as time goes on. I noticed that some of my classmates suggested that the countries that offer nothing should have less of a voice on the world stage. I do not agree with this. We need to maintain equality as far as international representation is concerned (in organizations like the UN and NATO). It should be paramount that we leverage all the resources we have in maintaining the economics of the global markets. We won’t be able to do that if we only give “powerful” nations a seat at the table. ----------------------------------------------------------Eddie Jackson GOK - Philosophy Major/Liberal Studies http://eddiejackson.net/ university page