Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: May history never repeat itself, except by the hands of the West.

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2

    May history never repeat itself, except by the hands of the West.

    this is my grade 12 English essay
    please critique harshly

    May history never repeat itself, except by the hands of the West.

    Everyone makes mistakes. Humanity, being everyone, makes mistakes. Most are forgotten, as human memory is not too great. It lasts just a few decades at best and that is due to recent rapid advances in technology. With advances in technology however, the mistakes become amplified; such as the Holocaust. People all over the world have been thought to never let it happen again, or anything else that wrongs the human rights. Yet, it is very hard. With a memory full of holes, it is hard to remember what one or many have done wrong and it is even more difficult when most do not care. People, as humans, biologically are self-centric and generally have no interest in pain and suffering of their distant brother and sisters in faraway lands, especially if they receive personal gain.

    People, are like most mammals, have hardcoded biological instincts that drive them to have hierarchy in their societies, creating groups of few that speak for the many. Those few have positions that are considered top level, and at this level the true human nature comes out. Politics have been considered the “dirty” business for centuries and rightly so. Even the “humane” and “peaceful” governments, also known as a collection of top rank hypocrites, such as in Canada are still “soiled”. Politicians make decisions that are always selfish, from their countries perspective, their own perspective, or both.

    What can be found humorous is the expectation of the world that mistakes of the past can be prevented if one was to put the politicians in charge of doings so. The effect of this direction of thinking is proudly presented as the United Nations: a collection of egoistic exhibits that may originally had noble goals and some power in the international arena, but have lost it all. In the words of one Russian journalist, “The United Nations have rotted to its core”. With no coalition to prevent criminal events internationally, there is no one to stop the superpowers and their allies from abusing their might.
    Unfortunately for Libya, it has become, or rather will become the most recent example of how a superpower and its allies can lie, and twist its way out of political scandal, meanwhile committing illegal international acts. “May history never repeat itself”, is a slogan that is used when referring to the Holocaust, but somehow inapplicable to Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The aspect that almost angers me is the similarity of the events in all the three above mentioned countries, and now Libya; one can easily see identical stages in the timeline of these conflicts, yet there is no one to prevent the past from being the present.

    The reason for invading a sovereign country in the ancient times could be as simple as “I don’t like you”, in the twenty first century however, it needs to be a noble cause. Selecting a “noble cause” for the world politicians is usually a hard task, with so many being around. To decide which conflicts can be classified under “noble” and “cause”, an extremely strict criterion is used; the one and only condition is that the interference in the political unrest in a sovereign state, must conceive a significant gain for only their country, in direct and indirect paths.

    The armed rebellion in Libya on February the fifteenth of this year, having a great potential, gave a false appearance of being capable of overthrowing the Muammar Gadhafi’s regime. That probably caused some European countries, such as Britain and France, which until this uprising had friendly ties with Gadhafi, to betray him prematurely and show their double-faced nature. Those who denounced Gadhafi are now probably thinking that this decision was a bit too hasty; the Libyan regular army has regrouped and driven the rebellion back to its last stronghold in just a few days. Until the chances of the National Transitional Council, the rebellions temporary government, of winning had practically dropped to zero, the West had no interest in interfering with the flow of conflict; NATO coalition, commonly dubbed as the West were gaining everything they could ever obtain from the conflict without meddling in Libyan affairs, and avoiding possible severe international political backlash, as long as the anti-Gadhafi forces won.
    Unfortunately for Libyan people the rebellion did not succeed on its own; as of now it looks like Libya will share a similar fate to Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN resolution that allowed NATO forces to enter Libya stated that the airspace around the last stronghold of the rebellion, Benghazi, is to be a no fly zone. It gave no permission for any type of assault on the forces loyal to Muammar Gadhafi, yet the western forces had delivered air strikes on Gadhafi’s territory. USA, as always, decided to outdo the rest of the world, declared that it will not participate in the assaults on Libyan regular army, and soon after launched one hundred twenty four “Tomahawk” type missiles targeting pro-Gadhafi targets, successfully spending five hundred sixty nine thousand dollars per missile, totaling seventy one million dollars.

    The western forces entered Libya for the same reasons USA invaded Iraq in 2003 and probably Afghanistan and Bosnia: personal and national gain. The scenario is the same. Create a bogus reason to invade or enter a country with large military force; tell the world how it is for its own safety and how the invaded country will become a democracy with the help of the West. Then stay in the country for as long as they please, creating an impression of trying to instate a democracy in the occupied country, while in reality the state of people’s affairs has become worse, and worsens with the presence of the western forces. And while they stay, western politicians will be able to control Libya like a puppet, sucking the natural resources out of it; the West does not even have to aid the rebellion in taking control of the rest of Libya, all they need is oil which is already under the rebels’ control.

    It is a matter of opinion when it comes to overthrowing oppressive regimes with outside help. It is morally right decision to enter Libya, and bring Muammar Gadhafi’s regime to an end. However it is still a crime to enter a sovereign country without its permission and interfere with its internal affairs; corresponding to a civilian equivalent of trespassing, causing bodily harm, and such. As stated above, this issue is a matter of opinion, and invasion of Libya and Iraq can be viewed as both a crime and a noble act. Unfortunately, the western forces entering Libya is an illegal act, because of the ultimate reasons behind it; the West’s propagates that they are helping people of Libya, when in reality they are after the country’s natural resources.

    A few questions arise when NATO members critique Gadhafi and sympathize with Libyan people. If the regime in Libya was so tyrannical, why was there nothing done about it before the revolution has started and almost died? Why was there nothing done to prevent conflicts such as in Rwanda and Chechnya? The answer is simple: the losses outweigh the gains. There would be too much political backslash if there was no solid cover up reasons; for example none existed in Libya until the uprising. In the example of Rwanda, there was no gain from interfering with the merciless killing of thousands.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. Politics is a craft that is too dirty, too opaque. History is too easily forgotten. When you mix the two of them, the past is always bound to repeat itself. Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya will be replaced by others, since humanity easily forgets and walks into identical traps. It is a noble cause to bring freedom and democracy to struggling, internally oppressed countries such as Libya. However, it is still an illegal act to invade a country against its will. Invading a country for its resources under a fraudulent noble cause is a crime of colossal proportions. USA, as a superpower, and its allies, members of NATO will worsen the situation for the Libyan people; they will bring more violence and no democracy, while probably stealing their oil. There will be no political scandal. There will be a second Iraq.

  2. #2
    Unregistered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Remiss, at times.
    Posts
    448
    First thoughts, this lacks a clearly established thesis. You don't start talking about the real issue until considerably far in, and even then the reader has trouble figuring out your argument. You start with amateur philosophy, which is in itself not a good way to hook a reader. Readers prefer specifics over abstracts. Philosophy, dealing in abstracts, is thus not a preferable way to start.


    People, as humans, biologically are self-centric
    Probably better to omit the word "biologically" here and elsewhere, as ego-centrism may be more a matter of conditioning and convention than human nature. In any case, whatever the source is not relevant.

    Politics have been considered the “dirty” business for centuries and rightly so. Even the “humane” and “peaceful” governments, also known as a collection of top rank hypocrites, such as in Canada are still “soiled”. Politicians make decisions that are always selfish, from their countries perspective, their own perspective, or both.
    Who is saying this? It's surely not a general conviction, and shouldn't be portrayed as one. Moreover, the general tone is ad hominem, which is unbecoming to the dignity of any argument. Ad hominem, making value-judgments and saying things like "and rightly so" start to undermine any claims to objectivity you're trying to make.

    What can be found humorous...a collection of egoistic exhibits that may...
    More opinion, patent mud-slinging, and some would argue straw-manning.

    Unfortunately for Libya, it has become, or rather will become the most recent example of how a superpower and its allies can lie, and twist its way out of political scandal, meanwhile committing illegal international acts.
    I think the word you might be looking for is "immoral" not "illegal," since legality is defined by a society, morality by something much more general (at least that's the popular understanding). I'm not sure if the acts the West, Britain, France, etc. has committed are illegal according to NATO's standards - the no-fly zone was certainly established legally. The men killed via the missiles were all military personnel, though Gadhafi was trying to tell us that they were civilians.

    The aspect that almost angers me is the similarity of the events in all the three above mentioned countries, and now Libya; one can easily see identical stages in the timeline of these conflicts, yet there is no one to prevent the past from being the present.
    Get rid of "me." I'm not exactly sure what you're implying by "there is no one to prevent the past from being the present." Should there be? But then who is to stop the government police from abusing their powers? As you established before, inevitably they will because our selfishness is biological. Seems like you've inadvertently asserted that humankind is hopeless in this regard.

    Also, I don't see how the next paragraph ties in with anything. You can remove it and the essay still reads perfectly fine.

    The armed rebellion in Libya on February the fifteenth of this year, having a great potential, gave a false appearance of being capable of overthrowing the Muammar Gadhafi’s regime. That probably caused some European countries, such as Britain and France, which until this uprising had friendly ties with Gadhafi, to betray him prematurely and show their double-faced nature. Those who denounced Gadhafi are now probably thinking that this decision was a bit too hasty...
    If these superpowers ultimately did have a knee-jerk reaction based on a selfish motive, they would have sent in troops to stop the insurrection. The fact stands that these countries, while they did not like the man, feared that a revolution would institute an unfriendly leader, unwilling to sell oil at a reasonable price. In short, the superpowers preferred Gadhafi in power over the risky prospect of a revolution. What prompted the reaction, or the over-reaction, was not some ulterior motive then. More simply it has to do with the fact that there are many more media devices today, wherewith Libyans could document the atrocities and post them on YouTube for the whole world to see. Now, instead of the deaths being mere statistics, they are right in front of our faces, affecting us much more deeply. It is this affect that has ultimately caused the media reaction - look at the past and see how things much worse have gotten so much less attention. The democratic government being controlled by the media has thus found it imperative to address the issue, in one way or another, and to give the public what they think they want. With this, it's pretty obvious why Obama quickly denounced Gadhafi as a leader. Not doing so would have aroused suspicion, jeopardizing his chances of winning the next election.

    With that, the rebels hardly gave a "false" appearance. The reason the media gave the issue attention, and consequently the government denounced Gadhafi, was because the public was invigorated by the recent revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, ignorant, and outraged by the atrocities they were seeing.

    hundred twenty four “Tomahawk” type missiles targeting pro-Gadhafi targets,
    They targeted, more specifically, military personnel. Saying "pro-Gadhafi targets is ambiguous and almost suggests that the missiles were launched at civilians, which they were not.

    The western forces entered Libya for the same reasons USA invaded Iraq in 2003 and probably Afghanistan and Bosnia: personal and national gain...And while they stay, western politicians will be able to control Libya like a puppet, sucking the natural resources out of it; the West does not even have to aid the rebellion in taking control of the rest of Libya, all they need is oil which is already under the rebels’ control.
    As implied above, this is not exactly the case. The governments generally preferred Gadhafi over the risky prospect of revolution, since he was reliably predictable and friendly enough to trade oil for a fair price. The governments did not enter for oil, but for public image. Also not sure what "personal" is referring to. If it was only for oil, why would the west continue to involve itself with the rest of the conflict?

    Create a bogus reason to invade or enter a country with large military force; tell the world how it is for its own safety and how the invaded country will become a democracy with the help of the West.
    Libya: Popular Democracy or Police State? Documentary of Libyan politics prior to the revolution. Prior to this, Libya was a "democracy." That you imply it was not bespeaks ignorance of the issue. Gadhafi was running more or less a political panopticon, but nonetheless a democratic one.

    It is a matter of opinion when it comes to overthrowing oppressive regimes with outside help. It is morally right decision to enter Libya, and bring Muammar Gadhafi’s regime to an end. However it is still a crime to enter a sovereign country without its permission and interfere with its internal affairs; corresponding to a civilian equivalent of trespassing, causing bodily harm, and such. As stated above, this issue is a matter of opinion, and invasion of Libya and Iraq can be viewed as both a crime and a noble act. Unfortunately, the western forces entering Libya is an illegal act, because of the ultimate reasons behind it; the West’s propagates that they are helping people of Libya, when in reality they are after the country’s natural resources.
    It is a matter of opinion when it comes to overthrowing oppressive regimes...It is morally right to...bring Muammar Gadhafi’s regime to an end? You say it's an opinion, then assert yours as a fact, then later you say it's a matter of opinion again, then you say it's unequivocally illegal (immoral) because of the reasons behind it? You contradict yourself multiple times in this paragraph.

    A few questions arise when NATO members critique Gadhafi and sympathize with Libyan people. If the regime in Libya was so tyrannical, why was there nothing done about it before the revolution has started and almost died?
    Oil.

    Why was there nothing done to prevent conflicts such as in Rwanda and Chechnya?
    More or less, lack of media devices such as cameras and phones. The atrocities were not right in front of our face, so we did not react to them with such passion, thus the media did not cover them as much, thus the government could get away with not doing anything about it.

    _____________________


    In general, this needs to be grounded in more concrete facts and less opinion. Cut the ad hominem and mud-slinging. Also, this piece endorses a very pedestrian point of view - blame the government for what the public has really done. All in all, it reads to me like a 12th grader essay, so kudos for that. But why settle for adequate, eh?

    Might add more later. Hope this helps.
    Last edited by Cunninglinguist; 03-22-2011 at 09:50 PM.
    Dare to know

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2
    Thank you very much for breaking down my essay completely.
    I feel like I've picked up a lot of pointers.
    Though i don't agree with some of you political opinions.

  4. #4
    Unregistered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Remiss, at times.
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by ankhmor View Post
    Thank you very much for breaking down my essay completely.
    I feel like I've picked up a lot of pointers.
    Though i don't agree with some of you political opinions.
    Well as long as we're thinking. Though the presence of these media devices has had its effect, and ought to be addressed if we want to understand the issue with the broadest scope. It certainly has made it a different species of conflict than Iraq or Afghanistan, adding a much larger moral aspect to it. Moreover, public image is a large engine in democratic politics, one that the public does not like to admit. Nonetheless, there is some Machiavellian duplicity going on, but I would disagree with the reasons you posit for it. In short, the gain of interference is more than oil and money, it is a good public image. In fact, we're slightly jeopardizing our access to the oil in Libya by passively supporting the revolution, since an unfriendly leader may take Gadhafi's place.
    Dare to know

Similar Threads

  1. I need recommendations for history books
    By zheng89120 in forum General Literature
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-19-2009, 05:46 AM
  2. Holding My Secrets in My Hands
    By 2littletime in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 03:02 AM
  3. Universal History and the Possibility of a Utopia.
    By vajra in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-14-2008, 10:11 PM
  4. History of Spite
    By Spite in forum General Literature
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-16-2005, 02:18 AM
  5. Trapped in the Nightmare of History
    By Sitaram in forum General Literature
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2004, 07:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •