Today (December 17th, 2008) in class we discussed what should be the rules of war. Two of the rules that seemed to get a lot of attention was: 1. Torturing is allowed. 2. You can go to war with another nation for the sake of vital resources. My opinion with #1... I agree with it. I believe that torturing would be very beneficial to CIA intelligence and could save millions of lives. I also believe that psychological torturing methods should be used more often over physical ones. However, I am not saying that the 8th amendment of the constitution - no cruel or unusual punishment - should be removed, I think it should be altered. Cruel and unusual punishment should be allowed for the gain of important domestic and/or foreign information on suspicion of terrorism or treason. Cruel and unusual punishment may not be a sentence for domestic civil or criminal cases ("criminal will obviously have fine print explaining the criteria of being a criminal."
#2. I am somewhat skeptical on which side to take but I am going to agree with this rule. If the would runs out of oil and only Saudi Arabia has some remaining but now they close their exports, I feel that the US has the right to invade and destroy Saudi Arabia for its oil. This wouldn't be such a bad rule because small countries, like Cuba which we have an embargo on all their trade, won't go to war with us because they know they will get destroyed instantly. This is a point that is easy to argue, I am just taking this side to see what ya'll have to say.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Warrior Etiquette
How should a warrior or a hero act? Is there a right way or a wrong way? The movie Hancock (hopefully you all have seen it) is a perfect representation of how modern society views how heroes should act. Will Smith, Hancock, is a drunken hero who is very reckless, but nevertheless a crime stopper and life saver. He is influenced to change his ways and does so. He becomes more polite, cautious and selfless. The world ends up loving him.
Now, as for Achilles... Many people (the readers, of course) view Achilles as selfish and stubborn. They see him as just a necessity, not someone who deserves honor and fame for defeating the Trojans. We understand his justifications for his actions, but he still seems like he could have gone about everything in a much better manner.
But is the way Achilles behaved actually wrong? Who are we to judge someone with "holy" power and terrific skill? I personally believe that there isn't a warrior/hero "etiquette" at all. The most important thing I need to distinguish before I continue writing is that I am talking about heroes and warriors, not leaders. Though that can be leaders as well, I am talking about well skilled soldiers and ones who save lives for the betterment of their own society, in this case. I feel that heroes such as Achilles don't have to act a certain way because trying to live up to what everyone else thinks about them can distract them from their true heroic beings. Why give up certain traits such as aggression and disrespect just so that one person or a group of people will like you? Why not just get the job done and go home? Is it okay for a warrior to be selfish? Is it even possible to become a warrior without being selfless? Heroes have already done enough, why ask more of them?
Dwell on these questions and respond back to them,
Thanks
Now, as for Achilles... Many people (the readers, of course) view Achilles as selfish and stubborn. They see him as just a necessity, not someone who deserves honor and fame for defeating the Trojans. We understand his justifications for his actions, but he still seems like he could have gone about everything in a much better manner.
But is the way Achilles behaved actually wrong? Who are we to judge someone with "holy" power and terrific skill? I personally believe that there isn't a warrior/hero "etiquette" at all. The most important thing I need to distinguish before I continue writing is that I am talking about heroes and warriors, not leaders. Though that can be leaders as well, I am talking about well skilled soldiers and ones who save lives for the betterment of their own society, in this case. I feel that heroes such as Achilles don't have to act a certain way because trying to live up to what everyone else thinks about them can distract them from their true heroic beings. Why give up certain traits such as aggression and disrespect just so that one person or a group of people will like you? Why not just get the job done and go home? Is it okay for a warrior to be selfish? Is it even possible to become a warrior without being selfless? Heroes have already done enough, why ask more of them?
Dwell on these questions and respond back to them,
Thanks
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Domination
This weekend I have been playing Call of Duty:World at War and I haven't be able to leave the screen. I beat the WWII game and enjoyed every minute. Why did I enjoy it? Why do I feel great when I dominate my enemy? In a more realistic sense-why do we glorify war? I believe that behind the main justifications of war, there is a obscured reason that countries go to war with each other. Its the emotional drive of war. I am not talking about the adrenaline and thrill of fighting on the battlefield, I am talking about the intimidation and confidence boost that comes from a victory. I feel that superpowers like the United States enjoy waging wars because they are known for blowing out the enemy. Our country can look down at most countries and intimidate them because of our military strength. When I win a match on Call of Duty I get excited, sometimes scream at the screen or spike the controller down like a football (I have broken a controller already). I did not really win anything but the emotional gain from winning the battle was good enough to keep on playing. The U.S. isn't hesitant about war because they know they have the intimidation factor and it will be a giant morale boost across the nation after the victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)