Topic: Who Are You?
Nearly 2 years ago I left a household of abuse, neglect, and suffering. After I left, things changed and I was able to find my real father; this is when my life changed. I have never had a real family, but today my life is full of family members and wonderful friends who love me very much. I have a real family now. My family is who has shaped who I am, whether they were the abusive mother and step-father, or the wonderful, heroic father, step-mother, and grandparents. Who I am today has been shaped by the trials I have gone through, and the family I will always have.
He walked into the restaurant, and immediately he became my number one hero. He walked with confidence as he held his head up high. I wondered how he could be my hero in a matter of moments when I had never met him before. My wonderful Daddy is my hero, and from that night on, he has been the person who has saved and changed my life.
He told me not too long ago that the moment that is most precious to him and touched his heart the most, was when he walked in those doors and I stood up and had the biggest smile a girl could have on her face. He was surprised by the smile because he could not understand why I, who never met him before, could be so happy to see him. It was because that moment in time was life changing. I am my own person now because of him.
It feels like yesterday I was sitting at my house in Blue Springs, MO babysitting my 3 rambunctious siblings before my mother came home from work. For 5 years I was trapped in this situation. I look on my previous livelihood and wonder how I managed to get so far in so little time. I also wonder, after living in what seemed to be hell on Earth, how I did not resort to alternative methods for getting rid of the pain. When I was in Blue Springs, I was not really an individual and I was not free. I did not do the things normal teenagers did; but what is normal these days? Nothing can truly be considered normal. It was not normal for me to have to live each day in fear that I would get hurt. All I had then was hope that I would make it to the next day.
I am freer than I have ever been in my entire life. I am a person who has stepped up to the challenge of being a big sister to many siblings. I have 9 siblings in all, though some are not blood related. The first 2 sisters and brother I had I practically helped raise. I was their security blanket when my mother and step-father were out of town working, or when they would come home and abuse us. I am also a person who is now living what used to be a fairy tale to me. I am getting help with college and actually being able to get and use tools that will help me live a better life. I am an individual who loves to play video games, draw, read fantasy or fictional books, and be with family and friends. I am a supportive girlfriend to my heroic boyfriend who is in the Army in Iraq at this present time. I have been told that I have a good head on my shoulders and that I am very mature for my age. Sometimes I wish that was not the case, because then that would mean I have actually had a childhood, when I really have not. None of this can really define me though.
I can say all these things that I am, but I really have not discovered who I am. I do not think I will really know who I am for a long while. I still have many things to discover about myself and many things to learn. Who knows, maybe when I move out on my own finally will be when I find myself. Right now I just live life the best I can, and I am always grateful for the changes that have only occurred in the past 2 years.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Motives Equal the Sentence
Topic: Guilty as Charged, But?
At first I can only think about one question: how can a person kill their spouse? Then I read the section about the woman being a victim to Alzheimer’s disease, and I felt sympathetic to a degree for Roswell Gilbert for having committed the crime of murder. The woman, because of this disease, would obviously have been in grave stress over the fact that she was being a burden to her dear husband. I agree with him being charged with her murder but the sentence to life in prison might have been too harsh. I understand that murder is murder but there is also a time for taking into account the motives of the murder. I always say that the punishment should fit the motives of the crime, not the crime itself.
Whenever I hear anything about Alzheimer’s disease I am saddened because I met a relative not to long ago that has this horrible disease. She is an awesome lady, but the weight she carries for having to rely so heavily on other family can be seen deep in her eyes. It is always a sad state of affairs when dealing with Alzheimer’s. Roswell would have been under stress himself for having such a burden to deal with; however back in 1985 the ideals for a husband and wife were different than those today. Back then the spouse would go to any length to make each other happy and to be the best partner one could ever ask for. So if one asked the other to jump off a building, or help end one’s pain, then he would most likely do it because of the devotion to each other. The worst thing in life is to see someone in so much pain that you love more than anything else in the world.
Mrs. Gilbert, instead of asking her husband to take the responsibility of ending her life, could have easily tried to find another way to get rid of her pain. She could have easily taken the gun in her own hands and pulled the trigger, rather than asking her husband to do that. This lack of taking responsibility cost Roswell Gilbert the rest of his life. Even Mr. Gilbert could have chosen a different route such as dealing with her pain together, and telling her that he would not take her life because he loved her too much; he did say that he loved her very much. The kicker was his devotion to his wife.
I do not think that he should have gotten life in prison without parole or clemency, though the charge of first degree murder was correct. I believe that society should have tried to understand where he came from when making this decision. Life in prison and no clemency showed that they did not try. I do not think our laws are sufficient to take care of ordeals like these because there have been too many people that have been set free for murder; these people had worse motives, more despicable motives than what Mr. Gilbert had. Some people who are given a long chain around their necks, compared to Roswell’s short chain, are some of the worst psychopaths in society. So in essence I do not think the laws are built strong enough to deal with the complexities of such issues. Penalties of crimes should relate to the motives of the crime committed.
At first I can only think about one question: how can a person kill their spouse? Then I read the section about the woman being a victim to Alzheimer’s disease, and I felt sympathetic to a degree for Roswell Gilbert for having committed the crime of murder. The woman, because of this disease, would obviously have been in grave stress over the fact that she was being a burden to her dear husband. I agree with him being charged with her murder but the sentence to life in prison might have been too harsh. I understand that murder is murder but there is also a time for taking into account the motives of the murder. I always say that the punishment should fit the motives of the crime, not the crime itself.
Whenever I hear anything about Alzheimer’s disease I am saddened because I met a relative not to long ago that has this horrible disease. She is an awesome lady, but the weight she carries for having to rely so heavily on other family can be seen deep in her eyes. It is always a sad state of affairs when dealing with Alzheimer’s. Roswell would have been under stress himself for having such a burden to deal with; however back in 1985 the ideals for a husband and wife were different than those today. Back then the spouse would go to any length to make each other happy and to be the best partner one could ever ask for. So if one asked the other to jump off a building, or help end one’s pain, then he would most likely do it because of the devotion to each other. The worst thing in life is to see someone in so much pain that you love more than anything else in the world.
Mrs. Gilbert, instead of asking her husband to take the responsibility of ending her life, could have easily tried to find another way to get rid of her pain. She could have easily taken the gun in her own hands and pulled the trigger, rather than asking her husband to do that. This lack of taking responsibility cost Roswell Gilbert the rest of his life. Even Mr. Gilbert could have chosen a different route such as dealing with her pain together, and telling her that he would not take her life because he loved her too much; he did say that he loved her very much. The kicker was his devotion to his wife.
I do not think that he should have gotten life in prison without parole or clemency, though the charge of first degree murder was correct. I believe that society should have tried to understand where he came from when making this decision. Life in prison and no clemency showed that they did not try. I do not think our laws are sufficient to take care of ordeals like these because there have been too many people that have been set free for murder; these people had worse motives, more despicable motives than what Mr. Gilbert had. Some people who are given a long chain around their necks, compared to Roswell’s short chain, are some of the worst psychopaths in society. So in essence I do not think the laws are built strong enough to deal with the complexities of such issues. Penalties of crimes should relate to the motives of the crime committed.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Free Country
Topic: Mailer 2
Mailer says that Bush has pushed for the war in Iraq for the purpose of building an empire, with Iraq being the stepping stone. I would prefer not to believe that as truth; however, Mailer’s arguments make sense and in my daily life I see what he means. To support his argument of an empire trying to be built, he goes into much depth about democracy. America is trying to build a democracy in Iraq today, and trying is the key word here.
Mailer says, “Real democracy comes out of many… battles that succeed in building traditions… but you can’t play with it" (70). He goes on to say that we cannot go over to Iraq and anticipate showing them how to have a democracy because of the way our system was built. Expecting for a democracy, like that of America, to be built within a matter of 10 years is absurd, and it will not happen.
When I look at the war today, I wonder why Bush is trying so hard to keep this war going. It does not make sense because we are not fighting terrorism. What are we really fighting for? To say that Bush is trying to save the world would be very farfetched. Now I have to agree with Mailer’s belief that this war is to get America on the road to becoming an Empire. Every day I see Bush trying to impose democracy on a country that is far different from ours. Let the Iraqi people decide how they want their own country run. It is like when America became free America. Britain tried to keep us under their same government style, but we fought back because we did not want that. I see this same fight happening in Iraq since this war started.
America has a great nation, but to be an empire we would be giving up all the rights that we have. Even our sexual freedoms would be considered “too much of a luxury”, as Mailer puts it (52). Bush even is trying very hard not to let gays have rights to marry, so what does that tell us? He seems to be pushing for an empire. Democracy is not meant to be an imperial government; it is meant for a country who wants freedom and who is willing to work hard for that freedom. So if Bush really is trying to use Iraq as a stepping stone for a global empire, then shame on him. We are a free country, not a free global empire; we should stay a free country.
Mailer says that Bush has pushed for the war in Iraq for the purpose of building an empire, with Iraq being the stepping stone. I would prefer not to believe that as truth; however, Mailer’s arguments make sense and in my daily life I see what he means. To support his argument of an empire trying to be built, he goes into much depth about democracy. America is trying to build a democracy in Iraq today, and trying is the key word here.
Mailer says, “Real democracy comes out of many… battles that succeed in building traditions… but you can’t play with it" (70). He goes on to say that we cannot go over to Iraq and anticipate showing them how to have a democracy because of the way our system was built. Expecting for a democracy, like that of America, to be built within a matter of 10 years is absurd, and it will not happen.
When I look at the war today, I wonder why Bush is trying so hard to keep this war going. It does not make sense because we are not fighting terrorism. What are we really fighting for? To say that Bush is trying to save the world would be very farfetched. Now I have to agree with Mailer’s belief that this war is to get America on the road to becoming an Empire. Every day I see Bush trying to impose democracy on a country that is far different from ours. Let the Iraqi people decide how they want their own country run. It is like when America became free America. Britain tried to keep us under their same government style, but we fought back because we did not want that. I see this same fight happening in Iraq since this war started.
America has a great nation, but to be an empire we would be giving up all the rights that we have. Even our sexual freedoms would be considered “too much of a luxury”, as Mailer puts it (52). Bush even is trying very hard not to let gays have rights to marry, so what does that tell us? He seems to be pushing for an empire. Democracy is not meant to be an imperial government; it is meant for a country who wants freedom and who is willing to work hard for that freedom. So if Bush really is trying to use Iraq as a stepping stone for a global empire, then shame on him. We are a free country, not a free global empire; we should stay a free country.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Wrong Reason for War
Topic: Blog on Mailer
As I read Mailer’s essay, there were many interesting topics of discussion that he wrote about. One topic was his reasons for why we are at war, or rather why we should not be at war. I agree with him because we are at war for the wrong reasons now.
Mailer wrote that fighting terrorism is not a good reason for this war. He pointed out that in America, most people are against terrorism. Terrorism has no substance in war. He asks if we, as Americans, really will know what we are fighting for. He also stated that Americans are violating their religious beliefs just as the Muslims are violating their Islamic beliefs. War goes against religious beliefs because the ideals are for peace, not violence.
Terrorism does not give us something worth fighting a war for. Terrorism is a concept that is too vague. Are we not terrorists by causing fear among the Iraqi people? When we first started this war, many of the Iraqi people loved us, but now they hate us even more. I even agreed with the war at first, but I was young and naïve; I did not have a good understanding of terrorism, as I do now. I think they hate us because we have overstayed our welcome. We are also asking many people to live with daily house search and seizures; this is cruel in itself, especially when most of them live in everyday fear already. Many are so afraid of being harmed by the increase in violence that they are being forced to leave their homes; they now have to find refuge elsewhere that is unknown to them. It is wrong to cause so much fear among these people.
When I look at the reasons behind this war, it is hard to see the truth. We are supposed to be fighting terrorism but this fight will be a never ending battle. Our government needs to remember what psychopaths do when they are caught after killing innocent people; they laugh in the face of the loved ones who become infuriated with the psychopaths. These actions reflect directly to the events that occurred shortly after September 11th. We gave into the terrorists, rather the psychopaths, when we retaliated against them for the murder of our loved ones and friends. When dealing with psychopaths, we should keep calm and find an alternative way to punish them. In the case of 9/11 though, we could not do any harm to those who actually committed the crime because they died too. We chose those people who were indirectly responsible to strike at. We went to war for the wrong reason because the terrorists are laughing in our faces still today.
Do we know what we are really fighting for today? We are not fighting for our religious beliefs because everything we are doing over in Iraq goes against it. We should not be in this war at all. The main ideal that we are fighting for is our way of life, but no war should ever be waged for this reason. The Muslims are fighting for the same thing though. We have no right to dictate to them that their way of life is wrong. We should be helping them, not making them fearful of us because fear does not win a war.
As I read Mailer’s essay, there were many interesting topics of discussion that he wrote about. One topic was his reasons for why we are at war, or rather why we should not be at war. I agree with him because we are at war for the wrong reasons now.
Mailer wrote that fighting terrorism is not a good reason for this war. He pointed out that in America, most people are against terrorism. Terrorism has no substance in war. He asks if we, as Americans, really will know what we are fighting for. He also stated that Americans are violating their religious beliefs just as the Muslims are violating their Islamic beliefs. War goes against religious beliefs because the ideals are for peace, not violence.
Terrorism does not give us something worth fighting a war for. Terrorism is a concept that is too vague. Are we not terrorists by causing fear among the Iraqi people? When we first started this war, many of the Iraqi people loved us, but now they hate us even more. I even agreed with the war at first, but I was young and naïve; I did not have a good understanding of terrorism, as I do now. I think they hate us because we have overstayed our welcome. We are also asking many people to live with daily house search and seizures; this is cruel in itself, especially when most of them live in everyday fear already. Many are so afraid of being harmed by the increase in violence that they are being forced to leave their homes; they now have to find refuge elsewhere that is unknown to them. It is wrong to cause so much fear among these people.
When I look at the reasons behind this war, it is hard to see the truth. We are supposed to be fighting terrorism but this fight will be a never ending battle. Our government needs to remember what psychopaths do when they are caught after killing innocent people; they laugh in the face of the loved ones who become infuriated with the psychopaths. These actions reflect directly to the events that occurred shortly after September 11th. We gave into the terrorists, rather the psychopaths, when we retaliated against them for the murder of our loved ones and friends. When dealing with psychopaths, we should keep calm and find an alternative way to punish them. In the case of 9/11 though, we could not do any harm to those who actually committed the crime because they died too. We chose those people who were indirectly responsible to strike at. We went to war for the wrong reason because the terrorists are laughing in our faces still today.
Do we know what we are really fighting for today? We are not fighting for our religious beliefs because everything we are doing over in Iraq goes against it. We should not be in this war at all. The main ideal that we are fighting for is our way of life, but no war should ever be waged for this reason. The Muslims are fighting for the same thing though. We have no right to dictate to them that their way of life is wrong. We should be helping them, not making them fearful of us because fear does not win a war.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Wrong Decisions
Topic: The Alligator River Story
Waiting for a love is very hard; I know because I am dealing with it right now. In this story, Abigail needed to wait to see her love; however, she got desperate and did not wait. If she loved Gregory enough, she could have waited or traveled the extra distance to be with him. The things she and other characters did to one another betrayed their trust and love. All of the characters did a wrong one way or another. I rate the characters by the level of how wrong their decisions were.
Gregory receives 1 because he had every right to cast Abigail aside for her betrayal of their love. He was hurt by how Abigail did not wait until she didn’t have to work the next day to make the travel, or until the bridge was fixed. Also, he could have helped her see him by meeting half way with her. I think, however, if he really loved her then he should have been more sympathetic to her situation.
I give Slug a 2 since the only wrong he did was to beat Gregory. He did it out of compassion for Abigail. He only wanted to hurt the person that hurt Abigail. Yes, hurting someone for this reason is not good at all. When I weigh the wrong doings against each other, the actions Slug took were far better than those of the other characters. Slug only did what he thought needed to be done.
Ivan gets a 3 since he was a bad friend to Abigail. Friends should not turn their backs on one another, especially in times of crisis. Ivan was wrong for looking the other way when Abigail needed help from him. He didn’t need to stay out of the situation, though I do agree it would have been a difficult one to deal with. He betrayed his friends trust and there are only a few things worse than that.
Sinbad obtains a 4 because he asks for one of the worst things for a service, sexual intercourse. He is the essence of evil in this story; he demands something that should have been unthinkable for Abigail. Sinbad was greedy, a black mailer, uncompassionate, and a number many other things. I have little respect for a person who asks for sex to give something in return.
Finally, Abigail gets the low of a 5 because if she really loved Gregory, then she would have waited forever, if that’s how long it would have taken. Love sees no time. Abigail did all the wrong things to be with Gregory for maybe a short amount of time. She willingly proceeded to be unfaithful to Gregory for all the wrong reasons. She deserved to be cast away by him. She was so impatient that time actually blinded her love, and lead her to make hasty and unwise decisions. She laughed at Gregory as he was beaten, and that is the worst thing a person can do; it is nothing but pure spitefulness. I have no respect for her. In the end, her decisions caused the result.
In this story, the characters made wrong decisions to cause a domino effect. None of the characters respected the nature of love. Love has no boundaries, and is not held down by time. Love does wait forever, only if it is true love.
Waiting for a love is very hard; I know because I am dealing with it right now. In this story, Abigail needed to wait to see her love; however, she got desperate and did not wait. If she loved Gregory enough, she could have waited or traveled the extra distance to be with him. The things she and other characters did to one another betrayed their trust and love. All of the characters did a wrong one way or another. I rate the characters by the level of how wrong their decisions were.
Gregory receives 1 because he had every right to cast Abigail aside for her betrayal of their love. He was hurt by how Abigail did not wait until she didn’t have to work the next day to make the travel, or until the bridge was fixed. Also, he could have helped her see him by meeting half way with her. I think, however, if he really loved her then he should have been more sympathetic to her situation.
I give Slug a 2 since the only wrong he did was to beat Gregory. He did it out of compassion for Abigail. He only wanted to hurt the person that hurt Abigail. Yes, hurting someone for this reason is not good at all. When I weigh the wrong doings against each other, the actions Slug took were far better than those of the other characters. Slug only did what he thought needed to be done.
Ivan gets a 3 since he was a bad friend to Abigail. Friends should not turn their backs on one another, especially in times of crisis. Ivan was wrong for looking the other way when Abigail needed help from him. He didn’t need to stay out of the situation, though I do agree it would have been a difficult one to deal with. He betrayed his friends trust and there are only a few things worse than that.
Sinbad obtains a 4 because he asks for one of the worst things for a service, sexual intercourse. He is the essence of evil in this story; he demands something that should have been unthinkable for Abigail. Sinbad was greedy, a black mailer, uncompassionate, and a number many other things. I have little respect for a person who asks for sex to give something in return.
Finally, Abigail gets the low of a 5 because if she really loved Gregory, then she would have waited forever, if that’s how long it would have taken. Love sees no time. Abigail did all the wrong things to be with Gregory for maybe a short amount of time. She willingly proceeded to be unfaithful to Gregory for all the wrong reasons. She deserved to be cast away by him. She was so impatient that time actually blinded her love, and lead her to make hasty and unwise decisions. She laughed at Gregory as he was beaten, and that is the worst thing a person can do; it is nothing but pure spitefulness. I have no respect for her. In the end, her decisions caused the result.
In this story, the characters made wrong decisions to cause a domino effect. None of the characters respected the nature of love. Love has no boundaries, and is not held down by time. Love does wait forever, only if it is true love.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Make a Choice
Topic: Human Rights vs. Majority Rule
Human rights and the will of the majority, rule our society today. Sometimes concerns of the majority of our people and the rights given to us as humans tend to clash. When they do, debates arise that become very important; the outcome of those deliberations are then a pivotal part in our way of life. The majority rule is not always fair to all involved because it does not reflect the wishes of the minority. Human rights help in giving the minority their own rights when the will of the masses is not what they were hoping for. Discrimination is one thing that ignores human rights entirely which is very cruel. Circumstances involving this should not be decided upon by a majority, leaving out the minority opinion, because these people need their opinions heard too.
Take the attempt to legally abolish in public employment discrimination based on sexual preferences for example. This has become a very huge debate. Human rights should really govern this, not the will of the majority. It just is not moral. In our society today, a majority of people do not want homosexual people teaching in our school systems, or pretty much any work environment it seems. This is where human rights come in, because whether you are straight or gay, we all have the same liberties. Homosexuality does not necessarily mean that the person in question is going to be a bad influence, or even will push their beliefs on others. Your sexuality and personal life really should be kept separate from your work anyways. Almost everyone knows this, and that is why it is completely wrong to deny employment based on a persons sexual preference.
This is what happens when our concerns for two different sides come into conflict. The decisions on sexual preferences are becoming a vital part of our culture. Human rights should be the choice maker, especially when it comes to abolishing discrimination. I believe that we are all equal, no matter our ethnicity, religious beliefs, or even sexual biases. We are all people with feelings and thoughts of our own, and we all should have the same liberties as each other, in this society.
Human rights and the will of the majority, rule our society today. Sometimes concerns of the majority of our people and the rights given to us as humans tend to clash. When they do, debates arise that become very important; the outcome of those deliberations are then a pivotal part in our way of life. The majority rule is not always fair to all involved because it does not reflect the wishes of the minority. Human rights help in giving the minority their own rights when the will of the masses is not what they were hoping for. Discrimination is one thing that ignores human rights entirely which is very cruel. Circumstances involving this should not be decided upon by a majority, leaving out the minority opinion, because these people need their opinions heard too.
Take the attempt to legally abolish in public employment discrimination based on sexual preferences for example. This has become a very huge debate. Human rights should really govern this, not the will of the majority. It just is not moral. In our society today, a majority of people do not want homosexual people teaching in our school systems, or pretty much any work environment it seems. This is where human rights come in, because whether you are straight or gay, we all have the same liberties. Homosexuality does not necessarily mean that the person in question is going to be a bad influence, or even will push their beliefs on others. Your sexuality and personal life really should be kept separate from your work anyways. Almost everyone knows this, and that is why it is completely wrong to deny employment based on a persons sexual preference.
This is what happens when our concerns for two different sides come into conflict. The decisions on sexual preferences are becoming a vital part of our culture. Human rights should be the choice maker, especially when it comes to abolishing discrimination. I believe that we are all equal, no matter our ethnicity, religious beliefs, or even sexual biases. We are all people with feelings and thoughts of our own, and we all should have the same liberties as each other, in this society.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Decision Time
Topic: Hijack!
Terrorism is an intolerable act of carnage against humanity. Suppose terrorists hijack an airliner full of passengers. In exchange for the passengers’ safe release, they want specific convicted criminals to be released from the custody of the United States government. Government policy states that terrorists will not be negotiated with, and the acts they afflict on a minority would be acceptable to prevent a greater massacre. It would pain me greatly to have even one of our citizen’s die from terrorists, if the decision were in my hands, but there is no other reasonable option. I would not be able to allow their demands to be met, because their actions of destruction are not livable and making deals goes against policy, however, every effort would be made to have the safe return of the hostages.
Living with terrorism every day means the injury or death of those we love, or those we do not even know. This is not bearable for most that are in the situation where a friend or loved one has been lost to a terrorist act. When you look at the bigger picture though, it would be better for those loved ones to die in that airliner than for an entire city to be wiped out. A close example of this would be the 9-11 attacks, especially in the case of Flight 93. According to reports, the passengers on that flight knew that if they allowed the hijackers to complete their objective, then more lives than their own would be lost. They acknowledged minority and majority comparison, and its consequences.
The effects of terrorism, and the damage caused, is why there are policies in the United States specifically made for preventing the continuance of terrorist activity. This nation does not and will not make deals with terrorists. It will do everything it can to keep the people in our country safe, and take necessary steps towards our protection. Some of those steps entail financial assets being frozen to known terrorist organizations, discontinuing material support from allies of the terrorists, waging battles against them, and informing and getting support from other countries who need to help in the implementation of these steps. When planes are hijacked, the government can only try very hard to find a way to bring hostages home safely. The only reasonable choice available is for our country to never give in to terrorism, because after that, it will be expected that we will always give in. We cannot concede to terror.
In my decision, it was more calculated than morally based. When it comes to the protection of a nation from terrorism, the greater good must come before personal values. Terrorists need to be stopped in anyway possible, so massacres like 9-11 will not occur again. We, as a country, should not have to live in terror, but we have to make the sacrifices needed to live safer lives. The policies have been made, and if those policies are followed, then our country will be better off in the long run. With this, the demands of terrorists’ nation wide will not be met.
Terrorism is an intolerable act of carnage against humanity. Suppose terrorists hijack an airliner full of passengers. In exchange for the passengers’ safe release, they want specific convicted criminals to be released from the custody of the United States government. Government policy states that terrorists will not be negotiated with, and the acts they afflict on a minority would be acceptable to prevent a greater massacre. It would pain me greatly to have even one of our citizen’s die from terrorists, if the decision were in my hands, but there is no other reasonable option. I would not be able to allow their demands to be met, because their actions of destruction are not livable and making deals goes against policy, however, every effort would be made to have the safe return of the hostages.
Living with terrorism every day means the injury or death of those we love, or those we do not even know. This is not bearable for most that are in the situation where a friend or loved one has been lost to a terrorist act. When you look at the bigger picture though, it would be better for those loved ones to die in that airliner than for an entire city to be wiped out. A close example of this would be the 9-11 attacks, especially in the case of Flight 93. According to reports, the passengers on that flight knew that if they allowed the hijackers to complete their objective, then more lives than their own would be lost. They acknowledged minority and majority comparison, and its consequences.
The effects of terrorism, and the damage caused, is why there are policies in the United States specifically made for preventing the continuance of terrorist activity. This nation does not and will not make deals with terrorists. It will do everything it can to keep the people in our country safe, and take necessary steps towards our protection. Some of those steps entail financial assets being frozen to known terrorist organizations, discontinuing material support from allies of the terrorists, waging battles against them, and informing and getting support from other countries who need to help in the implementation of these steps. When planes are hijacked, the government can only try very hard to find a way to bring hostages home safely. The only reasonable choice available is for our country to never give in to terrorism, because after that, it will be expected that we will always give in. We cannot concede to terror.
In my decision, it was more calculated than morally based. When it comes to the protection of a nation from terrorism, the greater good must come before personal values. Terrorists need to be stopped in anyway possible, so massacres like 9-11 will not occur again. We, as a country, should not have to live in terror, but we have to make the sacrifices needed to live safer lives. The policies have been made, and if those policies are followed, then our country will be better off in the long run. With this, the demands of terrorists’ nation wide will not be met.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
