I need support with this Political Science question so I can learn better.
Question 1
In the American Democracy, how should the rights of the individual be balanced against those of a society as a whole?
Instructions
200 words or less. State facts no opinions and no generalization. Be sure to ask a question
Response one (Alyssa)
Individual rights are very important but sometimes they clash with others rights. One example of this is the case where the owner of a bakery shop refused to make a cake for a homosexual wedding. The rights that the baker argued was his freedom of religion. The homosexual couple argued that his decision was discrimination. The court ruled that the religious rights of the baker (since they are one of our amendments to the constitution) would be upheld against the homosexual couple’s arguments.
Another example of this is health care, more specifically, government funded health care. Healthcare costs the United States about 1.2 trillion dollars each year. This is a big chunk of our spending. Much of this money goes towards those who need health care but cant afford it. It benefits many individuals. The downfall to this is that is takes money out of the pockets of taxpayers. Also, the money could be used for other things to benefit an even larger group.
Response two (paige)
The American Democracy
To start off, the ideas of American Democracy is that the American Government is based on ideas of limited government, including natural rights, popular sovereignty, republicanism, and social contract. Limited government is also the belief that the government should have certain restrictions in order to protect the individual rights and civil liberties of citizens. As Americans, we are all united in the belief that all people have certain inalienable rights.
One example that is known the best is the protection of freedom of speech, or not. If you are in a crowded place and scream “fire”, it is the inevitable that people whom surround you are going to take it seriously and react to such an act in a public place. Another example, this is the same as yelling “bomb” in an air port. Such acts are not somewhat protected by the Freedom Of Speech because they way that people react to these acts is unpredictable.
References:
Question 2
Read the advantages and disadvantages of each of the options. Pick one of the options and research the details of both the advantages and disadvantages listed.
Instructions
200 words or less Reply TAKING AN ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT. No opinions only facts.
Responses 1 amber
I chose option #3 – use military units to find and free the hostages because this method has proven to be successful for most of the stories I researched.There was the 2004 kidnapping of Roy Hallums during the Iraq War and after 3 years in captivity the U.S. Army Delta Force raided the farmhouse where he was held and rescued him.In this case, the advantage was that he was rescued alive due to the intel, resources and highly trained soldiers.A disadvantage to this method could be that there are casualties prior to hostages escaping.An example of this disadvantage was the Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis in 2002 where 30-50 armed rebels held over 800 people hostage.After two days of negotiations, the Russians made a decision to storm the theater killing all the insurgents and unfortunately most of the hostages as well. After doing the research I can’t say that this is always the best option, it depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation.If we look at the no-negotiation method, yes, it’s credible and will deter terrorist groups but there’s no guarantee the hostage will be released.This method also can be a drawn-out process and will capture the attention of the media which could intensify the situation.As for the exchanging of arms method, again there is no guarantees they will release the hostages.Also, this could encourage terrorists to kidnap Americans knowing there’s a possibility of some sort of exchange.The use of the military may take time to find the hostage(s) but the actions of the military will be swift and no nonsense.
Collins, Michael. 2017. Case of American kidnapped in Iraq reemerges. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/30/case-american-kidnapped-iraq-reemerges/99839444/.
Crowley, Michael. 2014. Obama Didn’t Negotiatewith Terrorists for Bergdahl. Retrieved from https://time.com/2809612/bowe-bergdahl-obama-taliban/.
Respeonse 2 Anthony
Since the option I would go with is not an available option, I feel that the best of the three available options would be option 2. Although it is not the best possible solution, it is the best solution available. Before explaining why I choose option 2, I would like to point out the reasons I did not select options one or three.
Option one does nothing to solve the current problem at hand, all it does is make America look “tough” to those holding our citizens hostage. I understand the country does not want to look like a “pushover”, however, ask yourself what is more important, 6 human lives, or looking “tough”. As highlighted in the disadvantages, there is NO EVIDENCE that this policy will get those hostages released. Furthermore, if nothing were to be done and public concern grows more for the hostages, America looks weak for not being able to change anything. This option may be important for preventing terrorists from frim attempting this, but it does nothing for those who are currently being held captive.
The third reason is even worse, although the enemy may have taken violent actions, violence solves nothing, it only creates more problems. Having a military unit attempt a stealth rescue mission is extremely risky and has no promise of a positive outcome. As stated in the disadvantages, the military is not optimistic that it will be a successful mission as they have no idea where the hostages are located and they aren’t sure if they would even be able to rescue them. Another concern expressed in this option is that the hostages may be killed during the rescue mission by the enemy. This solution is horrible because even those who would carry it out know that it is extremely risky and will put the lives of the hostages at greater risk.
The only reason the second option is the best is that there is a chance that we can get back the lives of those being imprisoned at a small cost to the U.S. government. The worst scenario present in the disadvantages is that we provide the weapons and they do not free the hostages. In the case that they do not free the hostages, then it may be time to seek an alternative route, but if this is the first course of action and it works, then there will be no need for further action. For this example, I will ask the same question, what is more important, 6 American lives, or looking tough? Is it really a concern that if news got out American’s would be angry? Is that not a concern of every action done in office? During situations like this, it is not about public approval, it is about saving people’s lives.
However, the ultimate answer to this question is to “kidnap” 12 citizens from their country that are currently visiting America. If we secure 12 “hostages” then there will be room for negotiation. Upon taking the 12 as hostages, we inform the Middle East what we have done and demand a trade for our 6 for their 12. Easy.
Question 3
Discuss whether our foreign and military policy in Syria should be based on American interests or a conception of human rights.
State the pros and cons of your own viewpoint and discuss both foreign and military policy.
Instructions
200 words are less. State facts no opinions
response one Maggie
The United states established diplomatic relations with Syria in 1944 following the U.S. determination that Syria had achieved effective independence from a French-administered mandate. Since the rise of ISIS in 2014, the U.S. government has worked closely with the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS to achieve a lasting defeat of the terror group. The U.S. is the largest single donor to the humanitarian response in Syria, providing over $10.6 billion in humanitarian assistance for vulnerable individuals inside Syria and those displaced in the region since the start of the crisis. (state.gov)
The strikes may not change the strategic situation in Syria, but they may dissuade future decision by the Syrians and their Russian and Iranian backers to use weapons and perhaps other indiscriminate weapons like barrel bombs or cluster bombs.
The Trump administration has not shown itself ready to cross the Russians or to inflict any meaningful damage to Assad’s military assets. Even less has it demonstrated a new inclination to develop a broader strategy to bring out a stable, peaceful Syria in the future. (Brookings.edu)
response two Winston
There is no clear answer to that question.
The relationship between America and Syria dates to the ’60s and can be described as sporadic. But why? To date, over 500,000 people have been lost to a war that began in 2012. So, some suggest that human rights should be at the forefront, while others suggest that the U.S. has its own agenda. Yes, the U.S. has spent billions of dollars trying to help stabilize the recovery efforts. After eight years, there seem to be no signs of an end, to the war in the near future.
Syria is somewhat of a safe place for enemies of America. The U.S. has a long track record of defending countries in trouble, but interfering or picking sides in Syria’s civil war will eventually backfire on us, and some political backlash will soon follow. The bottom line, the U.S. needs to focus on foreign policy to support its self-interest. While it may not be a popular thing to do, sometimes selfish decisions need to take place.
Remember that being selfish is not a bad thing when trying to do the right thing.
References:
https://www.usip.org/publications/2003/05/military-and-making-foreign-policy
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-syria/
Respectfully,
Winston
