This Wednesday, our Commander-in-Chief conducted a rare primetime address. This speech contained a synopsis of a current issue that needs to be solved. This speech was aimed towards ending the terrorist threats in the Middle East. The reason he brings up ending terrorism is because of the recent beheadings of two U.S. journalists by ISIS party members. ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, is a confirmed terrorist organization based out of Iraq and Syria. Their goals are to eliminate weak minorities within these countries, including Shi'a Muslims and Kurds, and obtaining total control of Iraq and Syria. The organization is so extreme, that it has been excommunicated by another terrorist organization, al-Quada.
In his speech, Obama outlined the atrocities committed by ISIS and the actions necessary to eliminate this terrorist threat. Mr. Obama used oversimplification as a tactic to enlarge their crimes. It must be pointed out however, that these crimes have been committed numerous times by numerous different countries, and the U.S. has refused to get involved. This includes; Armenians in Turkey (1915-1918), Stalin's forced famine (1932-1933), Rape of Nanking (1937-1938), Nazi Holocaust (1938-1945), Pol Pot in Cambodia (1975-1979), Rwanda (1994), and Bosnia (1992-1995). Almost all of these genocides were not stopped by American intervention, even the Nazi holocaust was not initially the reason to go to war with Germany. It seems that Obama's argument that we should stop these atrocities is invalid because we chose not to stop them in the past. Furthermore, every genocide the U.S. has stopped was purely for economic gain (this being the case in the middle east).
Obama also attempts to impassion is viewers by ascertaining that if the United States is meddled with, you will be hunted down and killed. This patriotic slandering is in response to the beheading of two U.S. journalists. Obama clearly wants to peruse armed attacks against these terrorists. Let's refresh our mind about how that has worked out in the past. The first intervention in Middle Eastern affairs (excluding the Israel-Palestine conflict) was way back in 1953 when the United States decided it would be a good idea to overthrow their very democratic leader, Mohammed Mossaddegh, for the tyrannical rule of the shah (the religious leader/king of Iran). This resulted in years of oppression and economic depression for Iranians. This situation became even worse when Jimmy Carter allowed the shah into the country for cancer treatment. The admittance of the shah into the U.S. caused rioting in Tehran (the capital city of Iran) and the eventual capture of the U.S. embassy. Along with permanent closure of our embassy, rioters also captured ambassadors and persons staying in the embassy. They were held for 444 days before finally being released. The United States also meddled in the Iraq-Iran war, the war against the Soviets (which resulted in a jihadist war, and the forming of al-Quada), the Iraqi government and the Israeli conflict of course.
One can obviously determine for one's self that additional meddling in the Middle East's affairs can bring nothing but harm towards the United States. If we were to never meddle in the first place, it is entirely possible that 9/11 would have never occurred and thousands of other lives would be saved. We need to address the horrid foreign policy of the United States before it is too late; and the whole Middle East decides to go to war against us.
Politics aside, Obama wrote a brilliant speech that, in my own opinion, succeeded in rousing the interests of Americans through patriotism and oversimplified facts.
Although I do think that the US should help in some way when the lives of so many are being threatened, I agree with your point that the US has been very selective about the help we offer. However, despite previous intervention efforts having varied success, I do think that as a fairly powerful nation we have a moral obligation to help those in need around the world.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that our foreign policy has been awful in the past. However, just because we've interfered poorly in the past doesn't mean all interfering is bad, especially if you consider that this isn't a full ground war, but mostly just aerial assistance. Also, I don't think it's oversimplification to talk about how terrible ISIS is, because they really don't have any good side. Finally, it wasn't the State of the Union, that was on January 28th.
ReplyDeleteI apologise for stating it was the state of the union address I was a little confused, thank you for commenting. In regards to our erroneous foreign policy in the middle east in the past, I think that having a bad record there makes the people hate us, and intervening yet again could only bring harm on our nation.
DeleteI agree that the U.S. has a tendency to act as international policemen. However, I do think that after our citizens were murdered and direct threats and messages were relayed to the U.S. through these gruesome videos, we can no longer stand by and not act. I do wish that the speech had elaborated on the defense mechanisms within the U.S., though, as ISIS has already stated that they have attacks slated for our homeland, specifically Chicago and San Francisco.
ReplyDeleteLike I've said before, I simply want America to recognize their wrongdoings and use the past to change the future and not make the same mistakes.
DeleteI agree, we have meddled in times we shouldn't have and we have left well enough alone when we should have stopped genocide. Putting ISIS out of the picture, it seems as though the oil companies of the U.S. want the middle eastern oil. Plain and simple. While ISIS is definitely an awful organization, our motives are not in the right place. This seems to be a reoccurring problem in America. I would like to affirm, however, that ISIS should definitely be stopped before it gains more power.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I really just want the U.S. to recognize their mistakes in the past and make adjustments, in regards to our foreign policy, accordingly.
Delete