Issue #8 Blog

Both sides of the taking sides article "Should the United States Preemptively Attack Iranian Nuclear Facilities?" believe something "fishy" is going on in Iran in respect to nuclear advances. Although there is something odd going on, I do not believe the United States has any reason to bomb Iran.
The "yes" side of the argument states, "What argues for early preemption is the risk that self defense may come too late if it waits too long." The problem with this argument can be seen because we have no evidence of nuclear facilities in operation with intent of harming other countries. Not only is there no evidence, but it is proven that Iranians do not have the mental capacity to construct weapons of mass destruction: "...the state oil company still cannot drill exploratory wells without foreign assistance" (141). If Iran is not able to drill it's own oil, resulting in having to "import one third of the gasoline it consumes because it cannot be refined at home" (141), how would Iran be able to construct nuclear weapons? America's fear is driving it's desire to bomb a country that is not capable of harming us.
Iran, without the mental capacity and means to construct nuclear weapons, is of no concern to America. Bombing Iran would only cause more problems. Other countries would see us as the aggressor. Some believe it would be good for other countries to fear us, but I believe if other countries fear us, they would be more quick to unleash their attacks on the United States if there was a conflict.
There is no reason to bomb Iran without plausible evidence that the country has nuclear weapons and intends on using them. America has nuclear weapons, why can we have them while other countries can't?

The Prince Blog

One is able to see why Machiavelli is associated with evil. Between the belief that one must step on friends to achieve power and his belief that a Prince must destroy a city to gain a Princedom, it is hard not to see the evil methods of Machiavelli. Although seemingly evil, are Machiavelli's methods that absurd..or just crazy enough to be successful?
One of Machiavelli's most evil point is found on page 12, "The memory of their former freedom will not let them rest; so that the safest course is either to destroy them, or to go and live in them." Machiavelli believes that a Prince must destroy a city to gain power. This is very evil because he is basically saying a Prince must kill a city so he is able to mold it into the Princedom he most desires. In order to gain power, a Prince must totally level a city and rebuild it.
Although his methods seem harsh, Machiavelli does have some points that seem to hold true: "...hereditary States, accustomed to the family of their Prince, are maintained with far less difficulty than new States..." (1). This passage is correct. An example is a family owned business. If "Smuckers" jam has been ran by the Smuckers family for over 100 years and all of the sudden a "Anderson" came to run the business, there are many people who would loose respect for the brand. Just like a Princedom, if a Princedom has been on a bloodline for hundreds of years, the people would question the next family/ruler.
Machiavelli's methods are still in effect to this date. The most obvious is the idea that to gain success one must make enemies and step on friends. Machiavelli writes, "he who is the cause of another's greatness is himself undone" (8). This quote describes the ladder to power, and every person the Prince must step in is a rung. This can be seen often in high school. Many (thankfully not me) students feel the need to "step" on friends who aren't as popular to gain the ultimate popularity. Often, girls especially, will use other girls to gain what they wish: popularity.
Although the methods of Machiavelli seem evil and crazy, these methods have proven in Machiavelli and our times to be effective. Because of the nature of man, these methods will most likely be universal and infinite.

Darfur

Sending troops into Darfur is our obligation as the seemingly most powerful country. Yes, maybe the "conflict" is not America's problem, but it is America's obligation. I believe America should send peacekeeping troops to Darfur. Lawrence F. Kaplin writes, "...don't pretend that Darfur will be saved by anything else." Darfur cannot resolve it's own conflict, and no other nations have stepped up in the long history surrounding the conflict. Because of this, I believe America should step up to send troops.
The opposition believes that sending troops would cause America to be stuck in Darfur. David Rieff believes that by sending troops to Darfur America would be "rubbing salt on that global wound." He also says doing that would be "morally unworthy." This poses an interesting question. Is it more immoral to watch the genocide and do nothing about it, or try to help?
Sending troops to Darfur is not only the right action to take, but the most moral. As the most powerful and able country, we should do the right thing and send troops to Darfur.

Blog #8

Kurtz's dying words: "The horror, the horror."

Throughout Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," the horrors of the human heart are revealed. As Marlow and his crew sail deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness, the environment begins to shape the men. The deeper they go, the more isolated and subjected they become to the "horrors" of the Congo. On page 16, Marlow talks about the "grove of death" (the clearing where the natives are left to die). This is not the only mention of the horrors the crew must face on their journey. On the very last page of the novel, page 72, "The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds...seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness." Joseph Conrad had chosen to end his novel with his theme of darkness, and the horrors that come with it. I believe Kurtz was not only talking about the horrors in the human heart, but the horrors he faced in the Congo every day.