Xhemali 2 Ilva Xhemali C. Douglas English 1102-093 18 February, 2014 makes a pivotal point when they state how the U.S readily supplied troops to NATO allies in the states of former Yugoslavia when mass executions of innocent civilians took place, and how low the effort in Africa is when the same events take place. (Goldmark, S.M.Bourassa 2) The authors use statistics of death ranges up to 400,000 and 2.5 million displacements of individuals caused by the Arab militiamen called the Janjaweed against powerless black Sudanese farmers. (Goldmark, S.M.Bourassa 2) The audience can be moved and compelled at such demographics. An argument based on morality triggers an emotional and immediate response and the inequality and biased help provided by the United States makes this argument sincere. However the argument is extremely one sided. It clearly has stated that The United States is the sole superpower of the world. (Goldmark, S.M.Bourassa 2) The authors do not take into account the recent upcoming and emerging superpowers. The authors could provide more substantial evidence of why all the moral obligations of the world rest on the United States shoulders. They could define what being a superpower really means in todays changing world and provide reasons why other nations are incapable of helping as much as the United States. The assumption of the undying power of the United States without support weakens the article. The unsaid consequences of direct involvement also weaken the argument. The article makes a historical reference to the holocaust which strengthens it. The article also addresses opposition saying UN intervention was viewed as a hostile invasion by Sudan and ceasing international intervention due to Darfurs objections.
Xhemali 3 Ilva Xhemali C. Douglas English 1102-093 18 February, 2014 The authors Otis Kramer and Rosalind Montanez-Muhinda write an opposing article to challenge the idea of the United States power and responsibilities. Their argument supports a more diplomatic involvement rather than military force. Similar to their opposition, the article begins with background information and statistics of deaths. The article makes a strong opposition when they state the murders of peacekeepers by gunmen. Government UNAMID peacekeepers from Rwanda, Ghana, and Uganda were killed and twenty-two civilians wounded during a July 2008 attack by a convoy of gunmen. (Kramer, OtisMontanez-Muhinda 3) These particular statistics strengthen the articles argument of not directly interfering in Darfur. The authors argument claim the U.S does not need to send American troops in an Arab country that poses no threat to the U.S. (Kramer, OtisMontanez-Muhinda 3) The argument makes sense to the audience from a logical rational viewpoint. The consequences of forced and direct involvement of the US strengthen the argument, causing hostility and resentment of the U.S to escalate in the Arab world. The article continues to state several diplomatic efforts as prime examples. However a weakness could be found with all these statements. The article fails to acknowledge the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts. How well are the diplomatic efforts sustained in war torn countries and do they ever resolve anything? The controversy of U.S involvement continues in Darfur with no clear precise answer. In the case of genocides and wars, decisions based on rational and logical judgments are always harder to make than the morally correct ones emotions play into. The article written by Otis
Xhemali 4 Ilva Xhemali C. Douglas English 1102-093 18 February, 2014 Kramer and Rosalind Montanez-Muhinda provides a slightly stronger argument because they take into consideration the consequences of U.S involvement based on facts. This strengthens their argument and gives them an upper hand. In contrast, the article written by S.M. Goldmark and Cheryl Bourassa fails to provide sufficient evidence to the audience of Americas superpower role. Each article supports involvement in Darfur in some way, therefore raising awareness to global issue and human rights in our current American culture.
Bibliography Goldmark, S.M.Bourassa, Cheryl. "Point: The U.S. Has A Moral Obligation To Intervene To Stop The Genocide In Darfur." Points Of View: Darfur (2013): 2. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. Kramer, OtisMontanez-Muhinda, Rosalind. "Counterpoint: U. S. Options Are Limited In Darfur." Points Of View: Darfur (2013): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.