Two weeks of class are now done. 14 weeks to go. I am sitting here trying to formulate what I want to do my research papers on (I have one each from two different Political Science classes). I also have a "Question" I have to research out for my Research Methods in Political Science/Critical Analysis of Research class. I was wondering why I have hit writers (or thinkers) block for the last week and a half when it comes to brainstorming a topic to cover. The news from the last couple days have made that a lot easier.
"To What Extent does American Foreign Policy promote or deter the threat of future beheadings by radical islamic jihadists when contrasted with the recent hardline position taken by the muslim country of Jordan?"
Yes, it is a mouth-full. But it seems that the question needs to be asked in light of prisoner swaps, negotiating with terrorists, and other forms of possible appeasement.
(I will allow my own bias to shine through for a moment). I felt ashamed today when I heard that Jordan had taken the position that "If you kill one of our citizens, we will kill every terrorist we have imprisoned that you demand be set free." Ashamed not at Jordan. But rather that we have not taken that stance ourselves!
I felt even MORE disgusted when tomorrow's SuperBowl has captured more of our attention than these asshole nutjob camel-jockies who think that it is right and good to behead someone based on hate.
I felt even MORE disturbed when I remembered that we set five of the most radical, hate-filled, terrorists free in order to secure the release of an U.S. Army deserter (Bergdahl).
Do we REALLY think that appeasement will settle this dispute? When has appeasement EVER worked inbetween countries? Jordan however is not so easily fooled by political correctness. No, I am not advocating for Jordan in all regards here. What I AM suggesting is that when it comes to this matter of taking a Jordanian captive, it probably won't happen again.
Stay tuned. More substance on this issue to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment