One of the underlying questions many of us in the class had about the battle was why the US was involved in the first place. In a speech by President Johnson, he stated, "Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well-being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability and even wider war." Now this quote was originally about America's involvement in Vietnam, but I believe it exemplifies how the US is counted on to come to the support of nations in need.
I personally agree with the President. I feel that throughout our history, the US has made a habit of coming to the aid of nations in need. While not always welcomed with the best support, I think that it helps resolve the issues more quickly, as in the case of Grenada and the Faulkland Islands. Some of the negative criticism is that the US is meddling. Some critics believe that the US is trying to push their own customs and ideas of government on the countries. I believe that as Americans we believe in personal freedom, and as a civilized nation we cannot condone the violation of basic human rights.
In the case of Black Hawk Down I think that it was highly controversial for the US to be there in the first place, but in the end I think that the US's intentions were correct and their reasons for going to Somolia were justified. Just as President Johnson said, "The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next." If the US and UN had never intervened, what would have stopped Aidid, the warlord and self-proclaimed leader of Somolia, from attacking other nations around them? That is why I think, although sometimes controversial, it is necessary for the US or UN to intervene in other countries conflicts.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
US Intervention: Nuisance or Helpful?
This week in my english class we watched the movie Black Hawk Down. Personally it is one of my favorite war movies because it gives you a good depiction as to what real combat is like. The majority of the movie was focusing on the battle of Mogadishu, the capital of Somolia. Most of the people in the class didn't even know of that battle's existence.
One of the underlying questions many of us in the class had about the battle was why the US was involved in the first place. In a speech by President Johnson, he stated, "Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well-being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability and even wider war." Now this quote was originally about America's involvement in Vietnam, but I believe it exemplifies how the US is counted on to come to the support of nations in need.
I personally agree with the President. I feel that throughout our history, the US has made a habit of coming to the aid of nations in need. While not always welcomed with the best support, I think that it helps resolve the issues more quickly, as in the case of Grenada and the Faulkland Islands. Some of the negative criticism is that the US is meddling. Some critics believe that the US is trying to push their own customs and ideas of government on the countries. I believe that as Americans we believe in personal freedom, and as a civilized nation we cannot condone the violation of basic human rights.
In the case of Black Hawk Down I think that it was highly controversial for the US to be there in the first place, but in the end I think that the US's intentions were correct and their reasons for going to Somolia were justified. Just as President Johnson said, "The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next." If the US and UN had never intervened, what would have stopped Aidid, the warlord and self-proclaimed leader of Somolia, from attacking other nations around them? That is why I think, although sometimes controversial, it is necessary for the US or UN to intervene in other countries conflicts.
One of the underlying questions many of us in the class had about the battle was why the US was involved in the first place. In a speech by President Johnson, he stated, "Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well-being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability and even wider war." Now this quote was originally about America's involvement in Vietnam, but I believe it exemplifies how the US is counted on to come to the support of nations in need.
I personally agree with the President. I feel that throughout our history, the US has made a habit of coming to the aid of nations in need. While not always welcomed with the best support, I think that it helps resolve the issues more quickly, as in the case of Grenada and the Faulkland Islands. Some of the negative criticism is that the US is meddling. Some critics believe that the US is trying to push their own customs and ideas of government on the countries. I believe that as Americans we believe in personal freedom, and as a civilized nation we cannot condone the violation of basic human rights.
In the case of Black Hawk Down I think that it was highly controversial for the US to be there in the first place, but in the end I think that the US's intentions were correct and their reasons for going to Somolia were justified. Just as President Johnson said, "The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next." If the US and UN had never intervened, what would have stopped Aidid, the warlord and self-proclaimed leader of Somolia, from attacking other nations around them? That is why I think, although sometimes controversial, it is necessary for the US or UN to intervene in other countries conflicts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice post Jaryd! I liked how you referenced President Johnson's speech into this topic and related it so well. I agree with your statement about the necessity of US and UN intervention in foreign affairs. We are looked at to protect and resolve issues; I think we should uphold that in most cases.
ReplyDelete