Click on the link below to access an article by Charles Krauthammer and a series of questions for you to answer. This response asks you to pull information from an article and then decide your opinion about the United States' role in the revolutions occurring in the Middle East. This post is due by Thursday, March 24, at 8:00 p.m. Arizona time.
https://docs.google.com/a/stcyril.com/document/d/1j1P-vsl9sZ7LTcC-XzNshSICMIRwF_tBbmleUs2yl60/edit?hl=en#
40 comments:
1. What does Krauthammer say was the U.S.'s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq? Krauthammer thinks that the foreign policy under Bush was to create a government for Iraq projecting his ideas and belief on the people. He also thinks that some other cites followed Bush blindly and got them into the same mess as Iraq.But Krauthammer agrees with the way Bush was trying to set the people free and give them rights without expecting anything in return.
2. What does Krauthammer say was the U.S.'s foreign policy under Obama now? Krauthammer thinks the the foreign policy under Obama are misleading. He talks about how during the election one of Obama's big topics was taking troops out of Iraq and it has been two years and still very few troops have been removed. Krauthammer also talks about the situation in Libya and how Obama seemed to be on Mubarak's side but that it was not clear.
3. Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)? Krauthammer agrees most with Bushes policy to make peace without taking anything in return and trying to help the people create a functioning government. You can tell Krauthammer agrees with Bush by the way he compliments him and how it set and example for the entire region.
4. Now respond to Krauthammer as if you were writing an email to him about this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States' role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your ideas so Krauthammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with "Dear Mr. Krauthammer,". Dear Mr. Krauthammer, I agree with you on the point that Bush sent troops with only good intentions of helping the people of Iraq build their own government but unfortunately that plan did not go very well. It has been some years now and not much progress has been made. I believe Obama is doing the right thing by taking troops out of Iraq even though it is not quite at the pace we would like it to be at. But with our situation in Libya we should let them fight their own battles just like in Iraq it was not the best idea trying to get the people into a government even with the greatest intentions. We should leave ourselves out of it and let them figure it out by themselves it is not our country to run. And creating a no fly zone and dropping missiles i don't think is the right thing to do event to save innocent lives. You are basically trying to save lives that are already lost or going to be lost by killing more people.We should have helped the people in another way not by trying to threaten the government by dropping missals.
Thank you,
Elizabeth
1.Krauthammer says that the U.S.'s foreign policy under Bush in Iraq was to bring freedom to the people of Iraq by ousting Hussein from power in Iraq.
2.Krauthammer says that Obama's foreign policy is to bring democracy to the Middle Eastern countries. To protect the people in that region from dictatorship.
3. Krauthammer favors Bush over Obama because Bush was able to establish a good diplomatic government in Iraq while Obama is still trying to help Lybia.
4.Dear Mr.Krauthammer I have read your article about the situation in Lybia. I want to inform you that I disagree with your statement.I believe that Obama is doing the right thing by keeping our troops out of harms way. He is also asking for help in this matter from coalision forces. I think that the United States should keep there distance but still help the Lybian people. We dont want to lose american lives like the amount we lost in Iraq.
1.What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
A: Krauthammer stated that the U.S’s foreign policy under Bush in irag is ““the "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism. “
2.What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Obama now?
A: Krauthammer stated that the U.S’s foreign policy under Obama now is the once proudly proclaimed "realism"”
3.“Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)?
A: Bush’s policy favors Krauthammer because after reading this article, it was obvious that he was a Republican who supported Bush’s foreign policies and ideas of realism because he said himself that “the Bush Doctrine set the premise.”
4.Now, respond to Krauthammer as if you were writing an email to him about this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States’ role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your ideas so Kratuhammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with “Dear Mr. Krauthammer,”
Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I agree with some of your points but on others I disagree. America is not at war with Libya, it is an attack to destroy their military bases so Gaddhaffi is not using them against his own people. I do like how you use other subjects as including Hillary Clinton’s trip to Asia, or America’s agreement with Iraq for the oil. The role America should take in this whole conflict with Libya is the attack they are doing now. America seems to be very invlolved with the Middle East countries for their recources such as oil. You stated in the article that “It's Yemen's president and the delusional Gaddafi who are railing against American conspiracies to rule and enslave.” They are asking for America’s help because we already got involved. I strongly agree with you that Iraq’s election set an example for the region.
Libya is in a revolution because there dictator has been hurting and killing people and has been in power to long also he does not help out his people one bite so people are revolting against him . The US it thinking of fighting, sending soldiers out to Libya also having meetings about how they can resolve their issues this is what the IUS is doing but the rest of the world is either doing nothing or sending troops and bombs to Libya. The Article Advocates what Obama is doing in Libya and it also states what Libya is doing like restricting flights. The Article is suggesting that the United States should lead the soldiers so that the rest of its allies can join them and help lead the way. In my own opinion I believe that this is none of our business we should be like Sweden and not do anything. The Libyan revolution has done nothing to us but raise prices on gas and food here and there.
1.What does Krauthammer say was the U. S. ’s foreign policy under Bush and
in Iraq?
The United States foreign policy under George W. Bush was the freedom agenda. Which is to promote democracy around the world, and above all in the Middle East.
2.What does Krauthammer say was the U. S. ’s foreign policy under Obama
now?
The United States foreign policy under Barack Obama is the nonproliferation agenda. Which is Obama’s policy for his four year term which he most address problems now and this policy ost address problems to come.
3.Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece
of evidence)?
The policy Krauthammer favors more is past president George W. Bushes Freedom agenda policy. One piece of proof is the last paragraph which it talks about how America has left with no oil, no permanent bases and just a democracy.
4.Now, respond to Krauthammer as if you were writing an email to him about
this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In
what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States’
role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your
ideas so Kratuhammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with “Dear Mr.
Krauthamme
Dear Mr. Krauthamme,
I’ am a eighth grade student in Arizona and I had to read your column on Libya and foreign policy’s. I agreed with what you said that America has lost to much blood for a democracy. I also agree with what you said about how the Libyan President and how he was scared about what we do to him. I think that the United States should not be in this conflict with Egypt. My reasons are that after spending many years in Afghanistan and Iraq we need to clean are slate first. We need to get our problems straight before we get into anyone else’s problem.
Sincerely,
Dylan Koch
1. Krauthammer says the foreign policy in Iraq under President Bush was to go in Iraq, take down Hussain and establish a democracy there.
2. Krauthammer says the foreign policy under Obama is that Obama is saying that Ghaddafi should step down but he has not taken any action towards achieving this step because he is feeling very cautious about this event.
3. Krauthammer favors Bush’s foreign policy. When Krauthammer says that Iraq is the only functioning Arab country with a democracy government and says that if we could get Libya to that point it would be a great success shows that he’s in favor of getting involved in Libya.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I do not agree with your article. I think the U.S should avoid getting involved in Libya. Recently the U.S has been launching missiles at Libya, each one costing around $600,000. Libya is not a threat to the U.S. Ghaddafi is a bad man but he has never made any noticeable actions or said anything against the U.S that could be considered a threat. As you said in your article the Libyan army is weak. They really could not hurt us. If France and Italy think that he is a threat and need to take actions then they should but the U.S should not be threatened. I do think that if the Libyan government does fall, we should try to assist by establishing a democracy in Libya.
Sincerely,
Tommy S.
1. Krauthammer is saying that under Bush we were trying to slowly trying to stop the dictatorship by Suddam Hussen by sending in troops and using idealism. Idealism is basically where people try and stop fighting by hurting as little people as possible.
2.Obama is trying to stop any nuclear warfare from coming into the equation. Krauthammer states that Obama things that stopping nuclear warfare is more important than stopping the revolutionaries trying to stop Gaddafi.
3. Krauthammer favors Bush's plan and you can tells this because when he is talking about Obama trying to stop nuclear warfare, in parentheses he puts, " talks that a child could see would go nowhere," therefore he is very skeptical about Obama and thinks he is making stupid decisions.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer, I believe that you are too critical of Barack Obama. Obama is trying to stop a catastrophic event from occurring in the Middle East and causing the economy to go into even more turmoil.I do believe that Obama should not be amazingly forceful and make this into the next World War, but I do believe that he needs to put an end to Gaddafi's reign of terror. I believe that America should only send in a small amount of troops so that we do not lose many lives. Sending in a small amount will stop Gaddafi, save many lives and not lose many lives
1. Idealism was Bush's foreign policy when fighting attack. He wanted to proctect the U.S and he wanted to do it by fighting and by creating a war. Which Krauthammer called it as misty eyed idealism.
2. Realism was obama's foreign policy. Because of the bad reputation that bush created by fighting back and causing a war so he wanted to do the exact opposite and maybe he wanted to settle things down a bit.
3.He prefers bush's policy by the way he starts his article being a little sarcastic in regards the comparrising of the Iraq invasion to the world calling of an intervention for what is happening now in Libya.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthhammer
I disagree with your comment on the way you were being sarcastic by saying that the world has been calling the United States really agressive and yet they have been calling the U.S for help. Yes, the world is calling for help but because Gaddafi is killing his own people wether they agree or disagree with him. Barak Obama is only taking things slower because he does not want to start another war with another country. What Bush did was wrong he started a huge war even though he was defending his country. Now Obama wants a better reputation for the country and I believe that that is the correct thing to do because if he is really agressive there will be another war in the middle east and I belive that no one in the U.S. wants that for their country.
1.) Krauthammer says that the U.S's foreign poilicy under Bush and in Irag was that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom. In addition, Iraq required a U.S sustained military engagement to push back Totalitarian forces trying to extinguish the new Iraq. In otherwords George Bush knew that we had to stay in Iraq and fight the war to establish democracy.
2.)Krauthammer says that the U.S foreign policy under Obama was no support for the revolutions in the Middle East, on the contrary Obama made clear that nuclear negotiations with discredited and murderous regimes took presidece over the democratic revolutionaries in the streets. In otherwords Obama was disregarding anything the Middle Easterners had to say about what they wanted to come out of this war. Obama has been contradicted on the reasoning for disregarding the Middle Eastern wants, because if he does agree with the Middle Eastern democracy he will be favoring what Bush had earlier accomplished.
3.) Krauthammer, it would appear, favors Bush's foreign policy. One example of this is his statement that declares America is leaving Iraq having taken no oil, having established no permanent bases, having left behind not a puppet regime but a functioning democracy. This is a positive statement which is favoring what Bush had earlier done in his former presidency.
4.) Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I agree with what you have written in this article in many ways. George Bush attacked Iraq for reasons that were not that clear. In retrospect we have not been attacked on U.S soil since September 11th, 2001. I belive, as many others, that because we took the war to the Middle East the terrorists were unable to attack us here in the United States. My position on the Middle East and specificaly Libya is that we should assist them in establishing democracies, and overthrowing evil dictators that sometimes suppress the people. So as Woodrow Willson said "Walk softly and carry a big stick."
1. Bush's misty-eyed idealism foreign policy, the Bush Doctrine, claims that we should be killing terrorists in self-defense for the good of the world. Bush thinks that we should intervene in foreign problems.
2. Obama's Foreign policy, "the smart power," is an antidote to Bush's misty-eyed idealism. Obama's foreign policy claims that we should engage in both military force and forms of diplomacy.
3. Krauthammer favors Bush. He says that Obama's administration cut civil and society funds for the organizations we now need to help the Egyptian democracy. Krauthammer also said that Obama was tardy in saying anything about the 2009 Green Revolution in Iraq.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I disagree with you and do not believe that Bush's foreign policy is better than Obama's foreign policy. However, I do not support either one of the foreign policies. Bush believes that we should be involved in world affairs and we should solve them by using only military force. Obama however, thinks that we should engage in both military force and forms of diplomacy to solve world problems. Obama's foreign policy is better but there is a flaw in his plan. He acts using a moral compass. In the world of national affairs, society cannot act doing what is morally right. I think that we should not use military force in Libya, but we should support the rebels in other ways.
Jose Morales
1. What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
-Realism
2 What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Obama now?
-Smart Power
3 Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)?
-Obviously he favors realism because, in a way, he stated that President Bush actually did something in Iraq and the Obama is just trying to negotiate and in parenthesis said that a child could tell wouldn’t work
4 Now, respond to Krauthammer as if you were writing an email to him about this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States’ role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your ideas so Krauthammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with “Dear Mr. Krauthammer,”
-Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
You did a very good job writing this column. Although someone who disagrees with you wouldn’t be saying that. My opinion has been iffy as to what the U.S. should do in Libya, but reading information that you had was helpful to me to make an opinion on that issue. Finding out that a lot of other countries wanted us to help in Libya made me think, why not help? If many other countries know we can help and want us to help I don’t see why we shouldn’t. that is my opinion and I thank you for supplying good information in your column.
Sincerely,
Ryan C
1. He sais that the the U.S polocey under George bush was to spread freedom to the countries in need.
2. He says that Obamas foriegn polocy is "smart power" in which he supports whatever country or government is the most conveinyent for him.
3. It seems that he supports the bush foriegn polocy by the way he critisises Obamas actions in China and Egypt.
4.Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I do agree that the Obama's foriegn polocy has caused problems in america due to his secret support for the dictatorships such as Egypt. And now that Democracy is erupting, His late arrival in aid is definately going to damage our relationships with these countries, unless we drasticly change our stance and give them the aid they need. I would have to agree with the Bush foriegn polocy, because even though it caust us many lives, We now have good relations with the middleeastern democracys as well as give countries with oppressed people a bit of hope.
What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
The foreign policy was to create a democratic government in the country. He felt that the people in the Middle East wanted freedom of choice.
What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Obama now?
His foreign policy is that the United States can keep the dictators of the Middle East under control by working with coalitions and negotiating with leadership.
Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)?
He favors Bush’s. One piece of evidence is, “ Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush's freedom agenda. . .”
Now, respond to Krauthammer as if you were writing an email to him about this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States’ role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your ideas so Kratuhammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with “Dear Mr. Krauthammer,”
Dear Mr. Krauthameer,
I believe completely agree with you and your stance. I agree with the idea of Bush’s role in Iraq to create a democracy. Bush’s plan has now soared and is doing exactly what Bush said it would. Plenty of people did not agree with this plan, but now that it is happening we should agree with this plan. I believe the United States should be in Libya to create a stable environment. We should help free the people and then let the people decide what government they want. This is my stance on the crisis in Libya.
1. The foreign policy was to create a democracy in the country of Iraq. George Bush felt that the Arabs wanted political freedom.
2. Obama's foreign policy is that Americans can control the Middle East dictators through a series of meetings and negotiation.
3.Krauthammer favors George W. Bush's. I know because Krauthammer rights...Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush's freedom agenda, it's not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I have read your column "From Baghdad to Benghazi" and I agree with your stand about George W. Bush's foreign policy. Reading your column, I completely agree with what you have to say about America's role in Iraq, and how we were there to establish a democracy, and nothing more. I agree that we should be in Libya and the Middle East and about how everyone in the world has a right to freedom and a democracy. I believe we should help Libya's citizen to help them reach their goal of freedom, and a stable environment. This is my belief about our role in Libya, and continuing what the great president, Mr. George W. Bush started.
1. What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
Krauthammer said that George W. Bush went into Iraq, for one reason, and one reason only…to set up a democracy.
2. What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Obama now?
Obama’s foreign policy, according to Krauthammer, is Obama thinks that America can outsmart, or rule, the dictators of the Middle East.
3. Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)?
Krauthammer favors Bush’s foreign policy. “Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush's freedom agenda, it's not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole.” This quote is stating that when America went into Iraq and set up a democracy, other countries wanted the same.
4. Response
Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I agree with what you are saying about both George Bush’s and Barrack Obama’s foreign policy. George Bush’s foreign policy was a more logical one because going in to a country and setting up a stable government as opposed to trying to take over the dictators. In my opinion, every person has the right to a stable country and with Bush’s foreign policy, that is possible.
Sincerely
Molly Lang
1. Bush's policy was a freedom agenda that included a sustained U.S. military engagement.
2.Obama's policy was explained as a new realism agenda which played down human right concerns in China and cutting aid for democracy promotion in Egypt.
3. I don't think he comes right out and states his opinion but I have a sense through the whole article that he favors Bush's policy. I also noticed he ended the article with a positive assessment of the new Iraq that America helped create.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I believe that you are correct how Iraq has got a great amount better since the U.S. has got involved. But I disagree that we should get involved in every problem other countries have. It is very important to me to get countries to have democracies but I do not think the U.S. should put so much time, men and money into other countries problems all the time. I think in Libya we should send in troops to support the rebels but for now on we should choose more carefully and not be so willing to send in troops.
1. Krauthammer says it was to promote democracy and and human rights in the Middle East.
2. He is saying that Obama is changing his position to be more pro-active like Bush where before he was more of a mine set to not get directly involved with the use of force.
3. Krauthhammer favors the Bush policies. An example in the article is he states the question, “Why did Obama decide to negotiate with Iran over nuclear disarmament versus supporting anti government pro democracy supporters?”
Dear Mr. Krauthhammer,
I think the United States should have gotten involved with Libya sooner than now. I do not think the United States should have gotten involved in Iraq. In Libya the people demonstrated through their own will and actions a desire to overthrow their ruler. With just a little bit of help United States could help them get this done. In Iraq, the people never really demonstrated openly that they were willingly to sacrifice to overthrow Husain. Only after 10 years of war and billions of dollars is there some kind of democracy present and that democracy is suspect at best.
Sincerely,
Caroline Amos
1. Bush's foreign policy was that Arabs are no exception to the "universal thirst for dignity and freedom."
2. Obama's is anything going along with the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran along with realism.
3. Krauthammer favors George W. Bush's policy and disagrees with Obama in mostly ever way. He favors Bush because of Democratic realism.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I'd like to start of with saying that i totally agree with you. I am with Democratic realisms as well. I'd agree more with Bush's ways than i would with Barack Obama. The Bush Doctrine has its many good reasons like spreading democracy though out the world.
Please consider it took me three hours to fully understand and answer the questions. Sorry for the late POST.
1.What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
According to the article in my opinion, President Bush wanted the freedom of all Middle East dictators. To Krauthammer, this was a "misty-eyed idealism" for Bush.
2.What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Obama now?
Obama wanted to proclaim realism and "smart power" in the first two years of administration. By now it's a new realism because now we are aware of people from Tehran asking for Obama's support to their cause of freedom. To this author, Obama is going back to Bush's foreign policy.
3.Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)?
He favors Bush's policy because Krauthammer is saying people are asking for Obama to remove dictators. Tehran asks, "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them."
4. Dear Mr.Krauthammer, did you mean, it is not a matter in oil? I believe that the only reason we are attacking Libya is for their oil. Now, according to my opinion Obama is not fighting only, or directly so he is using the small power.Why do you think the US is not taking justice in Venezuela, or in Cuba? Under any perspective, you can not compare Obama to Bush administrations. But in under any circumstances, war is not good for the world.
Sincerly,
Judith Gramajo
1.Krauthammer says that the U.S.’s Foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq is, Misty-eyed Idealism.
2.Krauthammer says the foreign policy now under Obama it the “smart Power.”
3.The policy that Krauthammer favors is the policy under Bush. The one piece of evidence that gives this away is the quotation marks around smart power.
4.Dear Mr. Krauthammer
I agree with some of the points you brought up but I also disagree with some of them. I agree with you when you say the United States was denounced variously for aggression, arrogance and Imperialism for bringing down Saddam Hussein in Iraq, so why should we go help out Libya and bringing down there leader. I feel that if things were to get really bad in Libya the United States should step in and help keep things in control.
Sincerely,
Valerie
Washington post's questions
1. What does Krauthammer say was the U.S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
Krauthammer says that Bush’s foreign policy was the misty-eyed idealism, which includes that it can be the reason why Obama is not completely sure about reacting with Libya because of Bush’s reaction with Iraq, the U.S ended up imperialism to people.
2. What does Krauthammer say was the U.S.’s foreign policy under Obama now?
Krauthammer says that Obama’s foreign policy of “smart power’’ is an antidote to Bush’s policy.
3. Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know?
I think Krauthammer favors Bush’s policy. Because he talks about Obama’s policy as ‘’Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed ‘’realism’’ of Years One and Two of President Obama’s foreign policy ‘’smart power…’’ and he also says ‘’Obama’s tardiness’’
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I strongly disagree with your opinion of Obama’s policy failure, I think that the reason that he hasn’t reacted with Libya is because all American’s safe and that means our safety is the primary point for him. Still, I think that it is true that he should get involved with Libya’s actual problem with Gaddafi and the sooner the better because Libya really needs our help. It is time for Libya to have freedom after so many years from Gaddafi and the United States should be part of it by helping with the military and get rid of Gaddafi’s government.
From Washington Post's questions
1. What’s the problem for Libya?
Gaddafi, Libya’s dictator has had the power for many years and but her refuses to leave. Libyans need a change from that weak, old and bloody government.
2. What is the dilemma that the United States had to resolve?
Libya needs the United States others to get Gaddafi out of the power and President Obama gave some messages about how Gaddafi needs to go, in the rebellion side. The U.S. decided not to react that way, our government is not sure about reacting in a definitely way.
3. What does the editorial advocate? What does the United States should do?
The editorial explains that the United States should intervene, and Obama as the whole U.S. should do it fast because without the U.S.’s help it will be harder to get Libyan’s freedom from Gaddafi, though, is understandable that the U.S.’s caution because of a possible risk
4. What should the United States do? (my opinion)
Personally I think it is good that the United States hasn’t reacted yet because there’s a risk for America, and the government has to keep in mind the primary safety of all Americans. Though, I think the United States should intervene soon because Libyans need our help and just like in World War 1, President Wilson had to join the allies and enter to the war at one point.
In response to Krauthammer...
1. Krauthammer says that george has a freedom agenda and most people are following it. It's that everyone should be in charge of their own government and not to be taken over like Libya. We should just let them be. Bush has more of Woodrows views.
2. He says that Obama ,on the Contrary, has made clear nulear negotiantion and is getting involved. People dont know is Obama is eaither with us or with them. He is geting into the crisis and getting everyones attention. He is kind of taking over thier goverenment. Obama has more of Theodore Roosevelt views.
3. Krauthammer definetly favors Mush's side and he made it very clear too. Some examples may include "Obama's tardiness" and krauthamemr talks a lot about Obama in a way that you can feel that he is more on Bush's side.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
Hello, I really enjoy your articles and i just wanted to discuss one of them with you. The article is called "From Baghadad to Benghazi" First off I completly agree with you in this article, I think that the U.S. should just stay out of thiese things becuase it is not our buisness. Plus when we did "help" it wasnt exactly help it was more agressive that it should have been. The U.S. needs to handle the Libya problem more maturally like talking to the people and their leader or taking their side by seding troops out. It is not right what is happening but I dont think we should intrude.
1.) The Bush Doctrine says that he wants to help the Middle east get their "freedom and dignity" just the the U.S. and that they are no exception.
2.) Obama's foreign policy says that the U.S. wont take any part of helping the Middle East and Libya unless "murderous regimes" stop and the armies stop fighting in the streets and killing people.
3.) Krauthammer agrees more with the Bush Doctrine because he supports his plan more than Obama's. At the end of the article, Krauthammer says "the Bush Doctrine sets the premise." Meaning he has better ideas.
4.) Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I agree with your article "From Baghdad to Benghazi" because I also think that the U.S. should presume Bush's Doctrine. I think Obama is being unfair and not willing to help them just because they are fighting. But maybe Obama could stop the from fighting. I think the United States should help Libya and the Middle East get their freedom and help them become civilized.
Answers to Krauthammer questions..
1. Krauthammer says that the U.S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq included that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom. This means that Bush wanted America to help the Arabs have freedom, and believed that it is America’s job to spread democracy.
2. Krauthammer says that the foreign policy under Obama includes realism, and using smart power. Also, the government has cut aid for democracy promotion in Egypt, and civil society funds. This seems like the United States doesn’t really want to help the revolutions, but recently a bomb was exploded to try and help the situation.
3. Krauthammer definitely prefers Bush’s policy. This is obvious because he states that Obama’s policies were “once proudly proclaimed,” which means that he no longer believes that they are. He also says that the Bush doctrine set the premise for the Arabian reach for dignity and freedom, which is a very positive comment.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer, I do agree with you on a number of points that you expressed in your column. The fact that most of the world seems to suddenly agree with Bush’s freedom agenda, while it used to be criticized, is absolutely true if you ask me. It is also true that Iraq’s government is the only functioning democracy, which no doubt is a result of America’s assistance. I believe that America should help the Libyans form the government that they want, but only if that is possible without the U.S. troops having to fight and die. Since the Libyan military is not very strong, this seems possible to me. I also think that Middle Easterners deserve to have open elections. Since America is the most powerful country in the world, and America stands for freedom, I think that we should help them grasp their freedom from corrupt government.
1. Krauthammer says that Bush is reckless in a sense and that he would go to war for any reason as opposed to Obama's policy that he calls " Smart Power". Krauthammer says that Bush took care of Hussein without hesitation.
2.Krauthammer describes that Obama's policy is " Smart Power" once again. It is also described as realism which in my opinion could be considered as a moral policy such as Wilson did.
3. Krauthammer favors Obama's policy. For example, " antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism".
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I believe that Obama's "moral" policy is more reasonable than Bush's policy because with situations like this you have to look more at if the problem should be approached and how. For example, the U.S. gets a lot of its oil from Libya and you wouldn't want to disturb the deal we have with Libya. It would also disturb the oil exports to us. I don't think that Bush's policy is very moral. I believe it should be moral.
1.) What does Krauthammer say was the U.S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
Krauthammer says that the U.S.’s foreign policy under Bush was a freedom agenda and dignity and idealism. In Iraq they had needed to support the U.S. military pledge to push back government forces trying to bring an end to the new Iraq.
2.) What does Krauthammer say was the U.S.’s foreign policy under Obama now?
Krauthammer says that the U.S.’s foreign policy under Obama was the “smart power” antidote to Bush’s stated “misty-eyed idealism.”
3.) Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)?
Krauthammer favors Bush’s foreign policy because he says that the demonstrators in Egypt, Iran and Libya having been waiting for America to help them. However, Obama just recently did something about Moammar Gaddafi in Libya but people have been chanting in the streets “Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them” (them meaning the government). So it sounds like Obama’s plan is not going well and Krauthammer thinks that Bush’s policy will work better.
4.) Now, respond to Krauthammer as if you were writing an email to him about this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States’ role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your ideas so Krauthammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with “Dear Mr. Krauthammer,”
Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
If your statements are true that America left Iraq without oil and without establishing permanent bases, then maybe we could get into Libya and establish a democracy like we did in Iraq. Although, I do worry about the lives that will be lost it might be best for these people and that we take a chance to try and drive Gaddafi out. The United States should not become involved militarily in these revolutions they should send our troops in just to help assist the rebels in other ways. We could help assist them by restoring their country to the way it used to be except that they would not have Gaddafi leading them and they would have a democracy. So Mr. Krauthammer I agree with you on some things. However, I am not fully sure I believe you are correct on some of your ideas.
1.Bush's freedom agenda.
2.Obama's smart power.
3.Bush's becauce as Krauthammer states in his article "A strange moral inversion, considering that Hussein's evil was an order of magnitude beyond Gaddafi's. Gaddafi is a capricious; Hussein was systematic.
4.Dear Mr.Krauthammer
I completely agree with you, because what you were turing to say was that Bush had a policy kind of like Roosevelt "Big stick policy". Whill at the same time you also stating to say that Obama's smart power is not affective as Bush's "gun ho" freedom agenda. I think that they should hand there problems on thier on but when they ask for help we should assist them
1. Bush’s foreign policy was not at all perfect and didn’t seem to get the job done.
2. U.S’s foreign policy under Obama changed and seems that Obama wants to not take major or stronger military force until it is necessary.
3. Thou Krauthammer does sound a bit on both sides I feel he’s on Obama’s side.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer
I have read one of your recent articles about Libya and I think the point you want top make is very clear. Some of your ideas in the situation make séance and are a source of information. However I feel the United States should just try to get what they want out of Libya and move on. Also stop all this time and effort on helping some rebels take over the government and be done with it. This just my opinion and in no way am I interested in politics.
Nicholas Lankisch
1. Krauthammer says that Bush's foreign policy was really sort of Imperialist, and he wanted as much power as he could have, so he wants to say that America is like the big boss country. Bush is really similar to Roosevelt's views of foreign policy.
2. Krauthammer says that Obama thinks about his military actions before controlling them like realism and Bush sort of just controls his military in any which way he feels at the moment.
3. Krauthammer agrees with Obama foreign policy rather than Bush's because he criticizes Bush, by saying his "misty-eyed idealism".
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I agree with what you are saying Obama's realism it seems a lot more logical than Bush's. At first I didn't think the U.S. should go to Libya at all but there are some reasons that lead me to believe we should as long as we are smart with it.
1. The U.S.’S FOREIGN POLICY WAS TO MAKE THE MIDDLE EAST A DEMOCRACY.
2. The U.S.’s Foreign policy under Obama now is to not to participate in the action.
3. I think Krauthammer is favoring with President Bush because of the democracy plan
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer I do agree with you because Bush wanted us to be civil with the middle east. I think the U.S should give a little help to the rebels in Libya because Gaddafi is killing his own people but the rebels are trying to hold their
QUESTIONS:
1. Krauthammer says that the U.S's foreign policy under Bush in Iraq has caused some bad reputation for the United States, such as aggression, arrogance, and imperialism and also that Bush skipped the idea of "realism" and went directly into violence without trying to deal with it accordingly.
2. The new policy that Obama is using is the "smart power" method. The basic concept of "smart powers" is the ability to influence others to get them to do what you want. There are several ways to do this, some of them consisting of using bribes to win votes or approval and another is to threaten them. Obama uses the method of attracting them and co-opting them so that people follow his lead and ideals.
3. Krauthammer favors the "smart power" policy because in my opinion, he states that Obama's new realism had reached its climax when Obama refused to pick sides in the Egypt dispute. I think that because Obama's holding back too much on wanting to start any sort of war, people are starting to doubt which side he is really on.
4. Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I do agree with you that other nations should not be filling up the minds of other people with negative and false information about the United States because as you said earlier, "America is leaving Iraq having taken no oil, having established no permanent bases, having left behind not a puppet regime but a functioning democracy." However I strongly disagree on that last part of your previous statement that declares that Iraq now has a better democracy and a more controlled government because of the U.S. I disagree because the U.S did a lot of harm and damage to many, many cities in Iraq, the war terrorized many innocent families and took the lives of many innocent citizens and bystanders. Iraq's democracy, I believe, is not as nicely organized as you put it. They are slowly progressing and they are very close to reaching their goal of having a stabilized and controlled government. This articles is one of the bet articles that I have come across regarding this topic and I respect your opinions greatly, seeing to it that we share the same opinions on many topics.
Honestly,
Marcela Rebeil
1.) Krauthammer says that Bush's foreign policy was one of idealism where he would promote democracy in the Middle East.
2.)Under Obama, Krauthammer states that the realism that Obama had promised for his first two years as a president has never happened. He has cut down on democratic support in Egypt and completely ignored the democratic revolutions and is focused on nuclear negotiations.
3.) Krauthammer favors Bush's policy because he states that Obama's "proudly proclaimed "realism" has been forgotten and was supposed to be the solution to Bush's alleged misty eyed idealism
4.) Dear Krauthammer,
I completely agree with you when you stated that Obama has made promises that he has not kept. I believe that Obama should focus helping to prmote democracy and helping those small nations become more independent. I don't agree with how we have began to use military actions in Libya, and instead I think that we should prmote other ways to help the citizens. I hope to be reading more from your column soon.
Sincerely,
Jim B.
1. Krauthammer said that Bush's policy was all about military and not much peace.
2. Krauthammer said his is moral.
3. Krauthammer favored Obama's policy because he said the "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed ideas.
4. Dear Mr.Krauthammer I agree with your statements about Bush's foreign policy because all he wants to do is solve problems by war and I think they should resolve some problems without war. I think we shouldnt do anything about it because it's there problem not ours.
1.) Bush’s foreign policy in Iraq is called the “Freedom Agenda”. The main objective of this plan is to assist the people of Iraq from Hussein and the Taliban and to instigate a democratic government that gives freedom to the Iraqi people.
2.) Krauthammer states that Obama is not engaging in military action while a series of nuclear negotiations are being made to threaten the Middle Eastern dictators.
3.) It is quite simple to see that Krauthammer favors Bush’s policy. After he describes Obama’s nuclear negotiation plan, he states that even a child could see that these policies won’t make any progress.
4.) Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
On reading your article on the relation of Obama's and Bush’s foreign policies, I assess that you have misunderstood what has happened in the Middle East. Obama has enforced a Libyan no-fly-zone and is assigning air strikes to slow Kaddafi’s men and is aiding the rebels and revolutionists who are fighting for freedom. Although, I doo agree with you on saying that Bush came to Iraq only to protect the Iraqi people from Hussein and the Taliban and to instigate a democratic government that could give freedom to Iraqi citizens. Even though I was confused on what you were arguing about at some times, I enjoyed the article you wrote. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cole Gregory
1. What does Krauthammer say was the U.S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
Krauthammer states that the United States was denounced variously for aggression, arrogance and imperialism. There was no chance of putting an end to the regime in Iraq without the involvement of the U.S. People are in favor of Bush’s freedom agenda now.
2. What does Krauthammer say was the U.S.’s foreign policy under Obama now?
Krautammer states that Obama’s “smart power” was antidote to Bush’s alleged misty-eyed idealism.
3. Which policy does Krauthammer favor?
Krauthammer favor’s Bush’s foreign policy based on his comments that “the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom”. Bush took action and Obama was late in supporting and the people in Tehran chanted “Obama, you are either with us or with them”.
4. Now, respond to Krauthammer as if you were writing an email to him about this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States; role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your ideas so Krauthammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with “dear Mr. Krauthammer, “
Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I recently read your article in the Washington post dated March 4, 2011 and agree with your comments. Specifically your views that Obama is waiting to get involved based on what the public will think. Then your views that Bush did get involved but the U.S. was denounced for being aggressive, arrogant and imperialistic.
Sincerely,
Rachel A.
Question #1: What does Krauthammer say was the U.S's foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
Answer #1: He talks about how the "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism is the foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq also because of how they kind of forgot about citizens and worried about democracy and their military more than they did us and that is why Bush went into Iraq in the first place.
Question #2: What does kreuthemmer say was the U.S.'s foreign policy under Obama now?
Answer #2: Krauthammer talks about how Iraq is losing their freedom which Bush promised them and the same thing is happening right now today. Obama is actually doing the same as Bush right now. Its not just Iraq who is losing help, also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed "realism" of Years One and Two of President Obama's foreign policy.
Question #3: Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)?
Answer #3: I feel that Krauthammer favors Obama's policy because when he talks about it and describes it, he states that it is "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism.
Question #4: Now, respond to Krauthammer as if uou were writing an email to him about this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States' role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your ideas so Krauthammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with "Dear Mr. Krauthammer."
Answer #4: Dear Mr. Krauthammer, I agree with you 100%. I think that my favorite would policy would also be Obama's. Even though Obama, neither Bush, follow through on their promised words. Like, for instance, Obama proclaimed to us Americans "realism." But that has not even happened in the last two years. I do not think that Obama should not worry about the whole Libya situation. I think this should be one of his main problems right now. But his main focus is to go into Iraq and find democracy. People are dying in Lybia because he is not putting a final stop to this nonscence. I believe that the United States role in Lybia is just to help the Lybians and calm down the violence and put a stop to whatever is going on there. We should not be going over there and bombing Lybia and killing innocent people just to stop a parade of protestors. I mean, everyone has rights and freedom and if citizens in Lybia want to protest, than I believe that they can protest if they want to protest because they have rights also. I would expect them to be really mad because they have had a president elected for more than thirty years and they are tired of him. I think that they should take the Lybia approach more calmly and to be more willing to help instead of just killing them all.
Question-What does Krauthammer say was the U.S's foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
1. Krauthammer thinks that the U.S foreign policy under Bush was to bring freedom, power and a new and improved government to Iraq also getting Hussein out of office.
Question-What does Krauthammer say was the U.s's foregn policy under Obama?
2. Krauthammer says that Obama's foreign policy was to bring some sort of democracy to Iraq and to keep them away from dictatorship.
Which policy does Krauthemmer favor? How do you know?
3. Krauthammer favors Bush over Obama because Bush helped the government problem in Iraq while Obama is still deciding what to do about Libya. You can easily see that irritates Krauthammer.
Question-Do you agree? Do you disagree? Why? In what whys? Start with Dear Mr. Krauthammer.
Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
I have read your article about the problem in Libya. I think you give a very good argument, and I agree when you say Obama has made promises and not kept them. But I think we should stay out of other countries business and deal with our own countries problems. Thank you and I am interested to see what you write about next.
From,
Adelaide
1. What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq? President Bush not only wanted to take down the current government in Iraq but wanted to set up a new government. He wanted to help them get back on there feet as a country.
2. What does Krauthammer say was the U. S.’s foreign policy under Obama now? During Obama’s presidential election he elaborately told of a 12 month plan to bring troops out of Iraq group by group fleet by fleet. It has been two years and we are still not decreasing our numbers in Iraq but we are strangely enough still increasing the numbers in Iraq.
3. Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)? Krauthammer is favoring Bush’s strategy. Proof of this is that he talks about how America can help Iraq back into being a stable country. This implies his belief that we should remain in Iraq.
4. Now, respond to Krauthammer as if you were writing an email to him about this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States’ role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your ideas so Krauthammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with “Dear Mr. Krauthammer,”
Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
My name is Riley. I am in eighth grade. I live in Arizona. I agree with not only you but with President Bush as well. I fell that if Obama starts pulling out troops now before we should then Iraq is going to fall back into its old ways. All of this fighting will have been for nothing. It will go back to being a dictatorship filled with terrorist.
Sincerely,
Riley
Question #1: What does Krauthammer say was the U.S's foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq?
Answer #1: He talks about how the smart power antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism is the foreign policy under Bush and in Iraq and because they kind of forgot about citizens and worried about democracy and their military more than they did us and that is why Bush went into Iraq in the first place.
Question #2: What does kreuthemmer say was the U.S.'s foreign policy under Obama now?
Answer #2: Krauthammer talks about how Iraq is losing their freedom which Bush promised them and the same thing is happening right now today. Obama is doing the same as Bush right now. Its not just Iraq who is losing, also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed "realism" of Years One and Two of President Obama's foreign policy.
Question #3: Which policy does Krauthammer favor? How do you know (give one piece of evidence)?
Answer #3: i believe that Krauthammerdoes not favor Obama's policy because when he talks about it he describes it, badly antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism.
Question #4: Now, respond to Krauthammer as if uou were writing an email to him about this column. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Why? In what ways? Argue for your stance on what you believe the United States' role should be in Libya and in the Middle East in general? Explain your ideas so Krauthammer will understand your reasoning. Begin with "Dear Mr. Krauthammer."
Answer #4: Dear Mr. Krauthammer, I disagree with you. I think that my favorite policy would be bushes. Even though bush, or obama, followed through on their promised words. Like, for instance, i mean obama does not even follow through with what he promises like realism for intense But that has not even happened in the last two years. I do not think that Obama should not worry about the whole Libya situation. I think this should be one of his main problems right now. But his main focus is to go into Iraq and find democracy. People are dying in Lybia because he is not putting a final stop to this nonscence. I believe that the United States role in Lybia is just to help the Lybians and calm down the violence and put a stop to whatever is going on there. We should not be going over there and bombing Lybia and killing innocent people just to stop a parade of protestors. I mean, everyone has rights and freedom and if citizens in Lybia want to protest, than I believe that they can protest if they want to protest because they have rights also. I would expect them to be really mad because they have had a president elected for more than thirty years and they are tired of him. I think that they should take the Lybia approach more calmly and to be more willing to help instead of just killing them all.
1.)Krauthammer says that Bush's foreign policy was of idealism where he would promote democracy in the Middle East.
2.)Under Obama, Krauthammer says that the realism that Obama had promised for his first years that had never happened. He has minimized on democratic support in Egypt and ignored the revolutions of democracy and is only focused nuclear negotiations.
3.)Krauthammer likes Bush's policy because he states that Obama's proclaim had been forgotten and was supposed to be the solution to Bush's alleged misty eyed idealism.
4.)Dear Krauthammer,
I definetley agree with you when you had stated that Obama has not done in anything that has said. I think Obama should help the smaller nations to become more isolated. I do not think that we shouldn't help Libya with thier situation because they need to handle thier own problems.
Post a Comment