So, oppressed people can not win the respect of oppressor. He believes in this way the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor because acquiescence is the easier way to encounter oppression, also it is not the moral way. In Dr. King’s opinion, the second way is resorting to physical violence and corroding hatred. He believes violence not only brings impermanent results, but also is impractical and immoral. According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding.
We start off with lethal and nonlethal attacks. With that being said the nonlethal attacks would be for their resource, weapon chasee and land marks that could impede their movements. Lethal attacks would destroy bases, artillery points, and anything that could cause harm to us on our way to our objective. We want to stop them from getting the upper hand on us. As a leader you must be flexible to changes.
‘It is difficult to remain a bystander in any conflict’ Conflict has an extraordinary capacity to draw human beings towards one side or another, even when they are unwilling to be drawn. Of its very nature it divides the world into simple categories: those who are ‘with us’ and those who are ‘against us’. Even when we know that the world is not so black and white, the heat of conflict can make some of the various shades of grey seem irrelevant or even self-indulgent. Even when people make a commitment to remain aloof from conflict, it has an insidious way of drawing them in. Thus a person can initially adopt a neutral stance, but soon become mired in the conflict and unable to withdraw.
If they see the soft spot, they will attack it on full force. If that happens there will in fact be at least an attempt on a terrorist attack against the United States. The United States should keep troops in the Middle East to protect the countries that are unable to protect themselves from awful terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and so that the U.S seems vulnerable to the same terrorist
Juarez as a dangerous threat. The attitude shifts from fear and hate to outright indifference. In the presentation the El Paso side never offers to help the Cd. Juarez representatives. They only assume defensive positions to protect themselves in cas eany attack is brought upon them.
The dehumanization of another group allows unthinkable crimes to be committed; neither party is benefited by this separation. The Rational Optimist explains the gains of working together while, The Grapes of Wrath and District 9 show us that the dehumanization of others only hinders progress and hurts those involved. This human defense mechanism against the unknown is born from fear and breeds evil. We must turn away from it, reap the benefits of working together, and allow progress to unfold before
Complicating the obligation to follow the tenant of discrimination is the fact that our enemies do not adhere to the tenant of discrimination. This dilemma creates complicated situations for our soldiers. The US military has been trained to not ambush combatants that are surrendering. Unfortunately, the enemies use this tenant against the soldiers. A problematic technique is the enemies waving the white flag so that they are able to get close enough to the soldiers to ambush coalition forces.
Without them the Army would be an unorganized insurgency left to its own devices and anarchy would be the norm, much like in Iraq and Afganistan. Poorly trained soldiers would have the right of way, making destructive decisions
They seem to be discussing strategy but what they are saying is unintelligible from where I am currently sitting. The leader of one of the sides flings a projectile; barely paying attention where it will land hoping to catch his enemy’s off guard, accidentally prevents one of his enemies to ever have
To put it on perspective, by conducting such practices we are able to anticipate and identify any threats before they take place; however the trust and cooperation of vital allies is compromised as they do not feel their privacy should be infringed by such practices. The lack of transparency and lack of knowledge on how deep this “surveillance practices” goes leaves us wondering how far is our freedom under attack as a result of the “war on terror”. Having such an issue with transparency we can only wonder if such controversial practices will ever be safe or better yet properly handled. As long as we don’t have a concise idea of what depth or abilities of the program is we won’t be able to determine how much the “Americans freedom” is been sacrificed or jeopardize or whether is an effective tool given that individuals like Edward Snowden have access to