Summary 3

Lindsey Knight

Mr. Comer

Honors Government

9/21/14

Summary #3

America is on the brink of war with Iraq again.  Some call the U.S. to action to protect the Iraqi citizens and the safety of the world, but others consider the possible dangers of intervention.  Charles M. Blow, a writer for the New York Times, “implore[s] the president and the nation to proceed with caution (Blow).”  President Obama has recognized the Isis group in Iraq as a terrorist organization and plans to institute a “a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”  Most Americans today are in favor of Obama’s plan, but Blow views this intervention as another costly war.  Back in 2003, three out of four Americans supported American intervention in Iraq, but the nine year struggle left Americans wishing for peace.  Therefore, Charles Blow implores Americans to think again about the cost of war with Iraq for a second time.  The previous war saw huge expenses and deaths.  Also, the equipment that the Americans left behind  is now being used by Iraqi terrorist groups.  America now has to spend millions of dollars to destroy the captured equipment.  Blow would beg Americans to think about another decade of spent money, lost lives, and chaotic war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/opinion/charles-blow-the-cost-of-war.html?_r=0

Summary 2

Lindsey Knight
Honors Government
Mr. Comer
9/21/14

Summary #2

According to former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, the "justifications for the decimation of [America's] defense programs... are wrong" (Romney).  He refutes this opinion due to his position on global "common humanity" (ibid.). Romney posits that in other countries, the sense of common humanity is subjective, and where one nation would call something "good," another may view it as bad.  The “reality is that humanity is far from common in values and views (Romney).”  In addition, Romney argues against those who believe that America should pull out their military from world affairs.  The United States could just accept the “nuclear weapons in Iran” and let China and Russia have the freedom to institute their power on nearby countries, but the governor believes that the chaos wouldn’t stay out of America (ibid.).  The U.S.’s multifaceted and diverse economy and diplomacy couldn’t stand alone if it were to step back from world’s military affairs.   For example, “the economy would be devastated by the disruption of trade routes” and global peace would be compromised (Romney).  

Even further, Romney rebuts the idea that the U.S. military is so big that small cuts wouldn’t make a difference. This idea is only formed from looking at the large size of America’s defense budget compared to other nations'.  Although it is perceived that other countries spend less, many don’t report their true spending, and “they pay their servicemen a fraction” of what America pays (ibid.).  Also, America has taken on more tasks than other nations such as “preserving the freedom of the seas, the air and space; combating radical jihadists; and preserving order and stability around the world as well as defending the United States (Romney).” Therefore, cutting the military budget would actually be relatively bad, and many programs would be lost.

Really, Romney knows that the true desire of those who wish to shrink the military is to spend more money internally instead of globally.  Politicians want to “spend money at home,” and it all comes down to the question whether the land of the free should “continue... military hollowing or… honor their constitutional pledge to protect the United States” (ibid.).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-world-needs-a-mighty-us-military/2014/09/04/f5234064-342d-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html

Summary 1

   

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government 

9/5/14

Mr. Comer 

Summary #1: Will Jews Turn out for the GOP

     American-Jews are primarily pro-Israel when it comes to global affairs, but this religious group tends to vote Democrat in election turnout.  Some still believe that in the 2016 election, many Jews will “turn on [the Democrats] and turn in on the GOP.”  However, this is truly not the case as the Jews are the “heart of everything from union leadership...to grassroots organizing” within the Democratic party. In the high ranks of the United State’s government, it is extremely rare to see a Republican Jew while it is rather common for Jews to be representing Democrats in the Supreme Court.  However, a candidate doesn’t need to be a Jew to get the Jewish vote; Jimmy Carter received more Jewish votes than even pro-Israel Reagan in the 1980 election.  Jews religiously vote Democrat, and often their Israeli state is set on the backburner.  Democrats typically don’t support Israel as strong as Republicans, yet on social issues, the Democratic principles line up with many Jewish ideals.   Many Jews would rather stand up for women's rights, gay rights, immigration reform than for an “Israeli related policy.”  Often, if a Democratic candidate is “likable enough,”  Jews will vote for them no matter their global policies regarding Israel.  Therefore, it isn’t right to believe that Jews will completely turn to the GOP in the 2016 elections, especially because Hillary is seemingly pro-Israel.  There’s a win-win for the Jews, though most probably would have voted for this Democratic woman anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/29/will-jews-turn-on-obama-dems-in-2014-and-turn-out-for-gop/