Extra Credit of Rendition

I don't agree with torture; in this movie the man was completely innocent, but he still said that he did it just to make the torture stop. So, how valid is the information from doing this. Also, they treated him better as a terrorist than when he wouldn't give any answers. What message is this sending? Another thing when he returned home there was a complete change in him. After something like that no one would ever be the same again, and in this movie he wasn't the same man after this. Lastly, this doesn't just affect the person in torture, this also affects the family. He was an American citizen, with an American family, but yet no one was told what happened to him, they didn't know if he was alive or dead. How is this fair to anyone?

Inherit The Wind

The playwrights imply that the themes of their play are timeless and universal because no matter what day and age these themes will still be relevent. For example, evolution vs. creationism, that is still discussed today. Religious people are still debating what Drummond said, "How long were the first three days before the sun was made." So, could evolution have happened?

Also, separation between church and state, that still goes on today. There are still people who say that there is not a complete separation between these two. Some say that the government tries to teach morality.

Lastly, stand for your beliefs even if you have to stand alone. Cates had to stand alone, but he still did, just like today. There are so many quotes or songs about standing up for what you believe or you'll fall for anything. In this election that is going on if you go on to Obama's website it says that he had to stand alone when going against the war in Iraq.

Should Promoting Democracy Abroad be a Top U.S. Priority?

I agree with the no article because it made better arguements. The Arab's don't trust the U.S. because Bush keeps contradicting himself. How can we help if they won't allow us too? Also, the reform programs did nothing, but cause lots of debt, and it didn't help much. The no article also gives ways to help so we can promote democracy, so the no article is more of there are things that have to be done first then promote, which is what I thought.

Should Arab democrats believe us? The United States has had past support for autocrats, President Bush in November, but we are preaching democracy in the Middle East. Contradictory much? Then some Arabs doubt that President Bush's staying power on behalf of Iraqi democracy, they also doubt that was his goal. Would you follow somebody you couldn't trust? I wouldn't. Also, the United States put itself in a bind when they said that everything will go well with Iraq. Because of this if we fail in Iraq we fail with the Arabs and they loose all trust in us.

Training morocco's feeble parliament; assisted elections commision in Yemen's de facto one-party state; convened a group of Arab judges; education programs, "English in a Box" for Jordanian and Moroccan teachers, Internet connections for Yemeni high schools, and a "child-centered education program" for North Africa and the Gulf. All of this adds to about $3,431,425,000, all this money to help, but none of these stand a chance for a tangible political change.

First, the U.S. government must do a better job of coordinating its assistance programs for civil society with its diplomatic agenda. Then American foreign policy must communicate to Arab governments that states that are actually changing the ditribution of political power will enjoy better relations with the United States than those that talk about reform but fail to implement it. Finally, the United States must trust that shared interests with its Arab interlocutors will mediate the tensions that an effective democratization effort is bound to create.

Is Torture Okay:: Yes or No

I would agree with the no side because it makes a better arguement and because I personally don't agree with torture. The United States stands for freedom and torture is the complete opposite of freedom, as said in the article.

The no article states that with the tortue comes the fact that you have to break a person, and after that the person can never be the same again. In order to break a person you turn him into something subhuman, you enslave him. To me that is compeletly morally wrong.

Also, with torturing comes the fact that how can you know if the detainee is actually telling the truth? In order to stop the torture they would say anything, even if in reality they knew nothing. I expecially agree with this part after watching the movie Rendition; he lied just to get the torture to stop. And on top of that they had no proof to hold him or to torture him, there was no reason for this man to be there. The man broke down and said that he was a terrorist and he was treated better as a terrorist then as a prisoner.