The Iraq War- Was It Successful?

To answer this question, first the objectives of the war upon invasion must be clear. At first, when the invasion was in its infant stages and the U.N. still backed it, the official objective was to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, which the U.S. and U.N. believed held weapons of mass destruction, and was also responsible for facilitation of Islamic militant/terrorist ideals and mass disregard of human rights. Saddam's regime was toppled in a short three weeks, at which point the U.S. changed its objective to the democratization of the Iraqi people. There is no doubt that America's first objective was efficiently accomplished, which served to "avenge" the genocidal acts of violence perpetrated by Saddam's regime and certainly stopped future acts of unneeded violence.Yet the completion of the second objective, that of the democratization of Iraq, is still hazy. Although democratic process have been set in place, it is hindered by racism and fear. If the masses do show up and vote, who is not to say we will not see a promising president turn into an authoritarian dictator who refuses to relinquish their position, as Saddam did? There are many hurdles the Iraqi people must face in obtaining a fair democracy, and they must face them alone. Only time will tell how Iraq's new government goes.

Debate Reflection

Overall, I enjoyed the debate even though it had several flaws. It seemed that in each group only two people, the debators, were working. I also didn't really like the question I was given about cultural Imperialism, I'd prefer something more controversial and interesting. I believe that if I put more time into writing an actual case instead of putting some facts on a piece of paper, I'd have less ums and uhs. This would make my case more engaging and effective.

Debate Reflection

My thoughts on the debate are plain and simple... I felt that it was interesting to see what points my team and the others presented but it required a lot of on the spot thinking (Something I am not too good at within the topic of democracy). I found it hard to keep on a train of thought because of the depth of opposing questions. It is pretty funny how both my team and Sam and Trip's team both reflected on the past with democracy instead of discussing possible outcomes of the spread of democracy in the near future. Even though debating sucked in my opinion, watching Austin and David vs. Drew and Stephan was interesting. Both teams had really good points about cultural imperialism but it was clear who on each team did their research and who did not. It sucks how Drew and Stephan started to talk about government imperialism because if they didn't they probably would have won.

Debate Reflection

I thought that overall, the two debates that we did in class were interesting. My group had the "no" argument for the question about whether or not the world is a victim of American cultural imperialism. It was somewhat difficult to come up with pieces of evidence for a question that was mostly based on opinions and different views of the our world. I think it would be better for us to have debate questions that we are passionate about and that we will actually give a lot of effort in defending our particular case. Also I think that in order to have a more heated argument, the groups should have been able to pick which side that they agreed with.

Debate Reflection

I love aruging. Debating is always a great idea in class, to get students involved and passionate about the topic. However, I felt the way the debate was conducted was a little robotic, with students just reading arguements off their paper and not really adapting their second round of debating to their opponent's arguements. Plus, groups were put together but really 2 people from each group did anything. I think if the class was divided and a more informal approach to debating that involved everyone's opinion would be a bit more engaging. However, I definitely think debating in general should be pursued in our class.

Debate Reflection

I have pretty significantly mixed feelings about this debate project we just did. I love the idea of having some sort of a verbal debate on a specific topic but I don't like the way it was done. I would have preferred a less formal way of approaching it. I would have preferred something along the lines of a round table discussion where everyone was recquired to speak at least once or something along those lines. The fact of the matter is that if I wanted to do debate like that, I would have taken debate. I find it nerve racking to get up there and talk in front of the entire class. I would have loved to have debated if it was less formal or if less people were watching. Along with this, the actual debate questions were poorly structured in my opinion. Took my group a decent amount of time to actually figure out what kind of evidence we should be pulling to support our side of the argument. I know for a fact the other group ran into a similar problem. All in all it was a good idea but I'd like it to be less formal should we decide to do it in the future.

Class debate

I thought that the debate activity we did in class was a great learning experience for all. I've only debated once when I was a freshmen, so I dont think I would have done a good job Although my group didnt fully understand the question, I'm still proud of what they did and what a good job they did representing us. I think that if we had more time to develop a more in depth answer, we could have been successful. Overall, I thought that this activity was a lot of fun and everyone can take something away from it and apply it to something similar.

Class Debate

I thought the debate over imperialism went very well and that all the teams spent good time and effort to get their points across. Although there were only two people at a time that could participate in the actual debate, everyone in the class was able to get involved. I did research and it taught me a lot on the subject that I never would have known otherwise. It was really interesting to learn how actual debates run with 'cross fires' and being timed, because I've never taken debate before. I give the people a lot of credit that were able to get up there and argue against each other because it would've been tough for me to get all my points across in such a short amount of time.

I feel that I did poorly in the debate today. I didnt fully understand the topic, which in the end was my downfall. Also I failed to properly execute the cross fires going off on rants instead of asking a question.

I wasn’t necessarily pleased with my performance in yesterday’s debate. The lack of communication between Jamie and I was our biggest downfall. We both had a good amount of information supporting our argument but we didn’t put enough time into thinking through who was going to bring up the different points. Also, Jamie nor I have had any experience with debate, which explains why we pretty much dive-bombed. The biggest flaw in the debate was that neither Jamie and I or Trippe and Sam actually answered the question at hand. In the end it is what it is, so I can’t complain. If we were to do this activity again I would want a little more of a walkthrough on how a debate goes as well as a little more team prep time in class

Yesterday's Debates

If I'm being honest, the debates yesterday weren't that great. I guess I'm being a debby downer because I've been debating since I was a freshman, but still. I know both teams were very well prepared and had very good evidence, but I didn't really see it. I would have liked to see both sides stand up with an actual speech prepared, and I would have liked to hear them say the author of the evidence they were using. And I guess I would have liked to hear them talk about World War 3...............but that's okay. All-in-all, I think the debates went very well; for the limited amount of time both teams had to prepare, and the limited knowledge they had about what they were doing. I still think my team one btw.

Debate Reflection

To be honest, I though the debate today was going to bring out Darth Wall-imann (Star Wars reference), but instead it went well. Although it ran smoothly there are a few things I would focus on if I had to get up in front of the class. Firstly, I would refrain from using "like", and try to be more concise when making my points or arguments. Secondly, I would try to talk slower and be more clear, as well as trying to sound as confident as possible. Thirdly, I would try not to repeat my thesis over and over before I make any points. However somethings done well were bringing in specific examples and having good support. Also the debaters were respectful to each and no fights broke out (although we'll see what happens tomorrow in the Big Dave vs. True Drew showdown).

Debating

I thought that the debate went suprisigly well. Everyone did a good job of speaking clearly even tho there was alot of "like" and "umm". Each point were clearly spoken and had meaning. I thought at first that 4 minutes was going to be to much for the speakers to do but they happened to do about 3 minutes which was surprising since it s hard to speak in front of an odience and time just passes by so fast. Overall everyone did good, the classroom didn't distract the speakers, and even if Trippe and Sam won, Jamie and Tyler did an excelent job of explaining their point and going against their opponents point.

Foreign Aid

Since late October, the world's population growth has no longer been a problem, it's been a crisis. It seems as though our recourses are dwindling while the person count continues to increase. So should the United States government give foreign aid to help? Yes. Should it be conditional? Yes. I believe that the United States has an obligation to educate foreign nations on the crisis we are facing today. I think it's our duty to make sure people all over the world are aware of the consequences we will face if population continues to grow at the rate it's growing. It's our duty to make sure people all over the world are aware that there isn't enough food or resources to feed a family of 12. Educating people on celibacy, contraceptives, and population reduction would be beneficial for all. Of course, the aid has to be conditional. We can't tell the entire world not to have sex, and we can't expect that the whole world will only have 1 - 2 children, but there is something to be said.

Aid for Population Growth

No. The last thing America needs to worry about right now is the population crisis. I, being an optimist in this crisis, believe that like humans have done for thousands of years, we will prevail. I believe that currently America has its own problems to worry about with the economy, the situation in the Middle East, and the environment. If the American government sent in large amounts of money to all countries throughout the world it would be incredibly costly. It is also very unrealistic with Obama nearing the end of his term. If he were to pull a stunt like this, the taxpayers who would pay to help for this "crisis" would certainly lessen their approval towards him. However, I do not believe that this crisis should be sweeped under the rug. Just because the United States shouldn't give foreign aid, doesn't mean other countries should follow our lead. This should be a topic for the United Nations to figure out, the burden should not be placed on America and its taxpayers.

U.S. and the Population Crisis

Uncontrolled population growth is the cause many problems around the world. Traffic jams, disease, famine, and poverty all start with overpopulation. The U.S, as a developed country, has a somewhat controlled growth rate and there needs to accept the responsibility of helping less developed, third-world countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia, or India. In India for example, actions have been made by the government in order to limit the growth rate, however, no improvements have occurred and India is on schedule to become the most populous nation in the world. It is up to the U.S. to bring aid to places like India because they won’t be able to do it on their own. If they don’t do anything then the world population will continue to increase and because of globalization it will bring negative effects to the rest of the globe. I don’t believe there should be any conditions to the help of the U.S. because slowing the population crisis is ultimately the more important in the long run.

Foreign aid?

I think the United States should give foreign aid to reduce population growth. The world’s population is growing rapidly and there is not too much we can do about it. One of the few things we can do is provide other less developed countries with foreign aid. The United States has good working conditions, good government (for the most part), and good living conditions, which is inviting for people that are not as well off, to come to the United States. If we gave foreign aid to other countries we would be helping them stay where they are and help their living conditions get better. If all of the numbers that have been predicted for the population in 2050 the whole world will be affected, although the U.S. is not necessarily part of the problem. We should help the countries that are overpopulated so in the long run we are hopefully not affected.

Should the U.S give foreign aid?

Do I believe the U.S. should give foreign aid, yes. Do I think they should start right now, no. I believe this not because the U.S isn’t capable, not because we are involved in multiple global conflicts, and not even because of our suffering economy. I believe we should wait because to achieve the goal that this idea of financing the poor nations to balance the population has set, we need all the developed countries to get involved. This is not a problem the U.S can solve on its own. France, Britain, Chine, Russia, and other well of countries need to unite with the U.S and solve this problem together. If the U.S were to start donating right now, it would have a positive impact, but not nearly as much as if we waited and unified through the UN and attacked this problem together. Only then can we hope to truly make a difference and establish a balanced population.

United States Stance on Population

In my opinion the United States should give foreign aid to other countries in order to reduce population. The fact of the matter is that population growth is mainly occurring in developing nations, rather than prosperous nations such as Europe. These third world countries are pumping out more and more babies every year, and less and less people are dying in the developed nations. Thus, we have a large amount of population growth. If population growth is going to get to the point it's supposed to get, it will effect the entire world, not just the countries that are experiencing rapid growth. This means, in order for the United States to "save" themselves, they have to support the countries that are causing the problem. Along with this, Americans consume more than any other country in the world, so we kind of owe it to these countries to help them out. The United States Congress should work on developing clear rules and regulations regarding population growth so they can begin providing aid to all these other countries.

U.S. gives help?

Yes, I think the U.S. government should give foreign aid to reduce the world population growth. If the U.S. government gives aid in foreign countries people from those countries will stop coming to the U.S. for better life conditions. As we all know, people from lower class countries come to the U.S. for better lives. Here we have better working conditions, living conditions, human rights, freedom of speech and religion. The U.S. giving aid is going to help the living and working conditions which is a good start. When you make a country better it will make the people want to stay there or even people from the U.S. go and live there. If we made all of the foreign countries as developed and well rounded as us, more people would want to live there. Women in foreign countries don’t have the knowledge of birth control and sexism. If we give aid we could help these people understand which will decrease or slow down population.

How the U.S. can help save the world

We, as a human race, are facing a growing population crisis. With worldwide populations growing exponentially, something has to be done. The U.S. can, and should, make efforts to start curbing population growth. First, all Americans should be educated on this issue and urged to consider having less children. The same should be done in all established, developed countries. However, aiding developing countries in this matter will be trickier. In these countries, the people's very way of life only adds to the world's population: mothers are urged to have as many children as possible, as more of them will die before reaching adulthood than children in developed countries. This is due to poor medical care, little to no education on contraceptives/population growth, and a much larger percentage of people living in poverty with no way to escape. To aid these countries, the U.S. must set the precedant in removing oppressive governments and pumping money into health services, so less children are expected and citizens may live happier lives, and have the chance to "work" thier way out of abject poverty. It will take decades, but if these changes are enacted soon, we will see most countries possessing roughly equal wealth.

Should U.S help other countries with population growth?? Conditions?

The United States is among the 5 top best nations in the world. The problem in the world today is that the population is growing to fast and we need to figure out something fast. Since the United States doesn't need help as much as other countries we should help as many ways as possible. We could be helping a lot of countries by educating them about the population problems and telling them what they could do to help.

Educating other countries would be a great idea but the problem is that a lot of countries that have problems are usually countries that don't want us there. This is one of the conditions we have to face and in order to do so we would have to reach an agreement with this countries in order to help the world. Everyone in the world need to understand that this will become a major problem in thirty-ish years.

Al Qaeda in Somalia

To be honest, I had no idea what was going on at the beginning of this article. I guess I don’t understand if the New York Times is trying to tell me that Americans are in Somalia dressed as Al Qaeda leaders. I don’t understand who is in the country taking people for their armies and who gave them food. What I do understand is that famine is not okay. I know that food security is one of the basic human securities everyone deserves. Whether it’s drought or not, someone should be in there making sure everyone has enough food to live. I know that it is not okay that 750,000 people are expected to die due to in within the next few months. I do know that the pictures we saw yesterday and the pictures of these people were leaked to us and other countries are not okay. It makes me think that our government is doing something wrong..that we are selfish and that something needs to change. This famine is not okay. Someone needs to help.

Say What?

When I first read the title of the article we would be reading, it didn't make much sense to me that the major Islamist terrorist group Al Qaeda was providing aid to Somalia who is striving to survive every day. Considering the brutality that they usually posses, I don't understand how all of a sudden they're telling these people that they're there for them and want to help. It also surprised me how the man who went and spoke on behalf of Al Qaeda spoke perfect english. I'm not trying to discriminate, but if he originated in the United States and became a member of the terrorist group it's possible that he could recruit others to Al Qaeda as well. When Abdulkadir Hussein said that Al Qaeda is just taking advantage of the hungry people and trying to get child recruits, it didn't shock me in the least. As disgusting and evil as this is, what more could you expect from a terrorist group?

Al Qaeda- Kill 'em All

This past weekend, a man by the name of Abu Abdulla Almuhajir waltzed into a Somalian refugee camp with large amounts of grain, dates, dehydrated milk, and more. He claimed this aid was from Al Qaeda, claiming the extremist terrorist group keeps the suffering Somalians in thier prayers, and praised affiliated extremist group Al Shabab, who currently controls the crumbling country. He covered his face and spoke in perfect English, with an American accent, and was surrounded by masked gunmen in aid-worker white vests. In my opinion, this is a thinly-veiled PR campaign for Al Qaeda, who is trying to raise thier reputation in desperate Somalia. They are trying to sew the seeds for future support in the region, and trying to ensure for themselves a future pool of recruits. If Al Qaeda supports those poor Somalians, why do they block Western aid groups (along with Al Shahab). This type of psuedo-propaganda makes me sick, but it seems most people see through this ploy.

Al Qaeda in Somalia

The recent showing of Al Qaeda representatives in Somalia is something of great concern. In Somalia Al Qaeda can be viewed as saviors and people of hope. With no foreign aid, particularly American, getting into Somalia, Somalian people may be tricked into thinking that nobody cares but Al Qaeda. This is incredibly dangerous. If Somalia sees Al Qaeda as the only group to lend a helping hand, it will be the group they will turn to when the drought is over. This would lead to Al Qaeda taking up a governmental role in Somalia, making it stronger than ever. This is why we must take immediate action in eliminating Al Shabaab, the affiliates of Al Qaeda controlling parts of Somalia including Mogadishu. If we destroy the Al Shabaab regime, we will then be able to provide immense aid to all of Somalia, and install a respective Democratic government.

Al Qaeda's New Tactic

This past weekend a man identified as Abu Abdulla Almuhajir visited a refugee camp in Somalia. A scarf covered his face, he was surrounded by masked gunmen wearing white vests, and brought with him donations. The donations included sacks of grain, dates, dehydrated milk, children’s clothes, copies of the Koran, and $17,000 cash which was divided amongst the families. Even more peculiar, Almuhajir was a white man speaking perfect English with an American accent and the donated items had a label that said “Al Qaeda campaign on behalf of Martyr Bin Laden. Charity relief for those affected by the drought”. The Shabab terrorist group starving the people of Somalia has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. Many believe that this is solely Al Qaeda propaganda in order to gain a new generation of recruits after a series of detrimental blows to the terrorist groups hierarchy of command. This is likely true, though some believe that Almuhajir is only pretending to be an Al-Qaeda representative. In this case it would be hard to find his motive. One possibility is that Almuhajir is a wealthy and clever individual who had devised a way to get aid into the starving people inside the Al Shabaab camp, though this is unlikely.

Al- Qaeda Does Charity and Terrorism

For about the first half of this article I was thinking, “wow, Al-Qaeda is helping people”. But after reading further I realized that they haven’t changed. They are working with the Shabab, a group that is causing the deaths of millions of people and taking children to use as soldiers. Although Al- Qaeda was giving the camp of Somalians food, it seems to be superimposed, or in other words it’s covering up the true relations that the two groups have together. The first thing that made me suspicious was the fact that Mr. Almahujir was white. Muslims from Middle Eastern decent usually don’t take kindly to Western or European converted Muslims. Also he praises the Shabab leaders for, ‘“operating under extremely difficult circumstances’”. This doesn’t make sense to me because the Shabab leaders are imprisoning these people and causing the starvation of millions, so how could they be doing any good? It sounds like Al- Qaeda is backing the part of the Shabab that is doing the imprisoning not the part that is giving them food. Either way, there is certainly something shady about the whole situation, and I’m sure that it can’t be good.

Somalia and Al Qaeda

This article really put a lot of questions in my head. One being why would Al Qaeda help the starving people in Somalia. One reason why is that the people of Somalia are at their weakest, and this is a great opportunity to take over the horn of Africa and gain support. Also Al Qaeda could be recruiting new members who seem to be American. "Abu Abdulla Almuhajir" was the person who went to Somalia on behave of Al Qaeda to deliver supplies for the people who are in need. I believe that they are doing this to earn the Somalians trust and if they earn their trust they could be able to take over the horn of Africa and also get new recruits for their growing army.

Al Qaeda and Somalia

After reading the article about Al Qaeda supporting Somalia for the severe drought that they are currently dealing with, I was somewhat puzzled. Seeing that Al Qaeda is the largest terrorist organization in the world, it is strange that they would be trying to support Somalia in their efforts to feed their people. Many people have doubts that this is actually true and that Abu Abdulla Almuhajir is just an Al Qaeda impostor. I do not believe in this because Al Qaeda has a win win situation for supporting Somalia. One is that they look good to all other countries by helping a country in need instead of terrorizing them. The other is that they have the chance to recruit young children by basically bribing them with a supply a food. With the situation that the Somalians are in, many of them can’t afford to turn down such an offer.

Somalia and Al Qaeda

I honestly have no idea what to think about this article. At first I thought it was crazy that Al Qaeda wanted to help the people in Somalia, but then as I kept reading I realized that there is definitely a reason as to why they are doing this. Considering the conditions in Somalia right now the mass amounts of people just want to get out. I think Al Qaeda is trying to take advantage of the drought and get new recruits. This is almost a perfect place for them to do so. The people that get help are going to be so grateful that they helped them they will most likely switch to Islam and be on Al Qaeda’s side. This is also a better way for Al Qaeda to better their reputation and get more followers. This article was hinting towards the fact that they believe Al Qaeda could have some American members, which I do not doubt.

Somalia and Al Qaeda

Honestly, when I heard the words "Al Qaeda" and "Somalia" in the same sentence I thought there had to be some sort of mistake. With Somalia going through this extremely horrible drought, I didn't think that a well known terrorist group would be helping them by giving them humanitarian aid. It seems to be a little backwards, seeing as Al Qaeda is probably the most well known terrorist group in the world, and they're not known for lending a helping hand. I also think its strange that Abu Abdulla Almuhajir is supposedly white. It seems like Al Qaeda is trying to make themselves look good by sending aid to Somalia, which I think there is something a little off there. I think that if Al Qaeda is going to do this, they should do it because they feel bad for the millions of starving people, not to recruit child soldiers. That is absolutely wrong of them to even try to do when thousands of people are dying each day. The people of Somalia have been starving for such a long time, they aren't going to realize that they are being taken advantage of by Al Qaeda. It's extremely sad to me to think that the poor starving people of Somalia are being tricked/taken advantage of by Al Qaeda.

Somalia

I had mixed feelings about this article. In a way I think it is good for Al Qaeda to help Somalia, but considering how they are normally seems kind of odd to me. Not to mention this Abu Abdulla Almuhajir guy, who seems to be white? Something about this whole out reach seems all backwards. Isn't Al Qaeda more for terrorism than for helping other nations? I agree with the last few statements of this article, this has to be some kind of promotion attempt. Why else, other than of course to help the suffering starving people of Somalia, would a terrorist group branch out and help those in need? Not to mention this shady Abu Abdulla Almuhajir.. the whole thing just seems shady to me. Maybe they are trying to turn over a new leaf, or maybe they are trying to win over the Somalians trust, who knows. All I know is that there are starving people out there that need help and if this is a propaganda move on Al Qaeda's part then that is just wrong and totally disgusting to use these suffering people for that purpose.

Somalia and Al Qaeda

This article originally came as a great shock to me. I thought to myself , why would Al Qaeda bother to send aid to these people. Then I realized these actions would give them significant pull in that region. This would be greatly beneficial for their recruiting campaign. Then an even more radical idea came to my mind. What if the Somalian militant group known as Shabab had planned this with Al Qaeda. They gain control over Somalia, and stop all western aid. This sets up the perfect situation for Al Qaeda to swoop in and look like the hero. The people that Al Qaeda are saving will be so grateful , that they will be more likely to convert to Islam and join the cause against the Western nations who failed to save them. This would be devastating for the U.S. because there are a lot of people at these camps, so even if a small percentage convert that is a huge gain for Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda Aids Somalia

I found this article very interesting for multiple reasons. First of all, I think it's interesting that Al Qaeda is changing up it's tactics. They've realized that what they've been doing for the past few years isn't the best way to advertise themselves. If they want to attract new "members" and become as powerful as they hope to be, then they need to put on the disguise of volunteers. Along with this, Al Qaeda sees Somalia and the entire Horn of Africa as a great opportunity. They're weak in two ways. One being physical due to the lack of resources and intense famine and two being politically. Al Qaeda knows if they become a prevalent force in Somalia that they could to a certain extent take over the country, and gain many more followers. It's also interesting that this article brought up the possibility that Al Qaeda could have some American members. It's my opinion that due to racial profiling, if any large scale terrorist attack is going to happen any time soon, it will be done by a white American. It's a troubling thought to think that Al Qaeda could be getting back on it's feet despite how many of their leaders we've eliminated.

Somalia Famine

I don't really know what to say about this article because it if so confusing. Why would Al Qaeda help starving people in Somalia if the group is known for its horrible terrorist acts? If this was Al Qaeda then why was the man completely white and spoke fluent English? I think it must have been someone that was faking it. but why would someone pretend to be from Al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense if it was AL Qaeda or if it wasn't. Some other people accuse of it being Al Qaeda and that they were doing this in order to recruit young people to join them in whatever they are planning to do. To me that sounds like the most realistic thing because Al Qaeda would do something as horrible as that. I still don’t get why they are helping with the famine when all they've been doing is destroying peoples life.

Global Companies and Human Rights

The main difference between Market-Building Strategy and Cost-Minimizing Strategy is that one doesn't assault human rights to increase their profits and the other increases their profits at their employees expense. I believe that the smarter strategy for a company to choose is the Market Building Strategy because they involve making significant investments that are unlikely to produce profits immediately and they are more committed to the people and the country. An example of companies that use this strategy are large food and beverage companies. An example of companies that use Cost-Minimizing Strategies are large factories where the employees are forced to work long hours and receive very little pay. I believe that it's important for a company to choose wisely when it comes to either of these strategies, because if they choose cost-minimizing over market-building, the media could hear of it and then the company would be exposed and customers would find out about how the company operates. If they find that they don't like the way the company operates or treats it's employees, many customers will turn down any product made by the company and that will result in lower profits for the company.

Company Strategies

It's important for companies to promote human rights and the strategies that they produce need to attract its customers. Market building companies aren't as probable to abuse human rights than cost-minimizing firms and they seek profits by building up markets rather than abusing workers rights. These cost-minimizing firms are more pressured when it comes to globalization and to increase their profits at the levy of their employees rights. Market-Building strategies involve making investments that aren't as likely to create immediate products. Market building strategies mostly include large food and beverage companies. Cost Minimizing strategies involve factories where employees work long and hard hours for little pay. It was interesting to learn that what a company produces will affect its human rights record. That's important because if a company isn't treating their employees with respect and fair treatment, it will likely come out into the media and turn people off from buying that companies products.

Market Strategies

A Market-Building Strategy is a strategy where a company seeks profit by building up markets rather than assaulting worker rights. These companies take time to bring in immediate profits, and tend to have a commitment to the people and the country in which they operate. These are the companies that make up most of America such as Coca-Cola, Kellogs, and Macintosh. A Cost-Minimizing Strategy is when a company looks to increase profits at the expense of its employees. Companies that implement this strategy are mainly short-term and vulnerable to the demands to increase profits. This demand leads to poor treatment of employees due to the overwhelming concern of profit over everything. Examples of these kinds of companies would be sweatshops that are found all over the globe. These sweatshops have operated for large American companies such as Nike and are found in underdeveloped countries where jobs are difficult to find.

Marketing Strategies

When it comes to how an economy in a certain regions economy is functioning, the condition of the businesses in that area will determine the wealth of a countries economy. In a successfully thriving economy, you can be sure that what businesses it contains market building strategies that function on profits and good morals. Marketing building strategies are maintained and are implemented consistently by the company. Ways to maintain profits consists of identifying a target market, knowing your competition, finding a niche, building credibility and being consistent.

But as we know, when there are thriving markets, there is the competition that struggles to strive. When businesses are having these problems, some turn to cost minimizing strategies in hopes to raise their budget. These tactics can range from hiring fewer workers to paying under minimum wage and creating poor working environments.

Market-Building Strategy vs. Cost-Effective Strategy

As the book defines, market-building companies are less likely to abuse human rights than cost-minimizing firms, which are more short-term oriented and more vulnerable to the pressures of globalization to increase profits as the expense of employees' human rights. Market-building strategies involve making significant investments that are unlikely to produce immediate profits. Companies that pursue this type of strategy usually have a better level of commitment to the citizens and nation in which it operates. The market-building strategy seeks profit by building up markets rather than assaulting worker rights. On the other side of things, the cost-minimizing strategy is extremely important. It actually increases profits, however; it does so at the expense of the employees. The cost-minimizing strategy may be effective in many ways, but in order to get to the top using this strategy, human rights need to be infringed upon. It is not, in any way, desirable for a company to have to abuse these rights. So which is better? I'm gonna have to go with the market-building strategy. I know for sure I would never want to be part of something that took away my basic human rights.

Role of Global Companies

In the modern day market there's a large amount of competition. Lots of big corporations will do whatever it takes to get ahead of the competition. Sometimes, this involves using things like child labor and outsourcing to foreign countries. This way, the corporation isn't bound by the same regulations to protect human rights. The question is, is this ok and should we do something to stop it? The exchange rate for foreign currency allows for these companies to pay these workers less yet have it be a realistic amount for these workers in their country. However, sometimes these needs are not met and the workers are paid near dirt amounts. I think outsourcing is alright as long as it's regulated the same way businesses are regulated in America. It can be a smart business practice, but not when it comes at the expense of America's reputation or at the expense of human rights.

Market-building Strategy an Cost-minimizing Strategy

Market-building companies use the market-building strategy and will most likely not abuse human rights, unlike the cost-minimizing companies. Market-building strategies make significant investments that won't produce an immediate profit, because of this they have a stronger commitment to the people and the country they are in.

Cost-minimizing companies use the cost-minimizing strategy because they are more influenced by the pressures of globalization to increase profits. This of course leads to human rights violations. Most of this is fueled by the fact that most cost-minimizing companies are based in countries that fail to enforce protection of human rights, China being the prime example. Most of the things we have are made in China by people who are over worked, under-payed, and most likely working in poor conditions.

Marketing and Cost-minimizing strategies

Marketing strategy will show the result of your company. Marketing strategy is a process that can allow an organization to limited resources on the greatest opportunities to increase sales. A market building strategy doesn’t step on human rights, most of the time. A company that holds this strategy will most likely get profit. This strategy has bad working conditions. It also has bad pay, they don’t get paid fairly.

Cost-minimizing strategies are harder on workers but also will employ. This strategy give your fair pay and good working conditions. I don’t know any other examples that of a cost-minimizing other than Nike. The Nike produce produces their material at a cheaper cost for there employs.

Market Building vs. Minimizing

What would the world's most prominent and popular shoe company do to increase it's profits? Well, NIKE employs small Chinese children for little to no pay, who work in sweat shops in over packed factories, where you can never seem to escape the toxic fumes of melting plastic. This is a great example of a cost minimizing strategy. A company outsources and cheats its way around the American system so it doesn't have to pay as many taxes or pay minimum wage to it's employees. A company like GMC on the other hand, conducts it's business in America, pays it's employees at least minimum wage and does not outsource or build factories in other countries to avoid taxes. That is market building, when a company benefits the overall market, instead of finding ways to make the most money, which usually violates human rights. This is not to say that market building companies don't try to make as much profit as they can, but they at least follow those little things called human securities.

Global Companies

There are two different types of companies, one that is based off market building strategies and the other that is based off cost-minimizing strategies. Companies that use the cost-minimizing strategy are usually much more globally affiliated than the companies that use the other strategy. This is because they take advantage of employees in different countries that do labor for much less than minimum wage in America. This causes the overall profit of the company to increase because they are not spending as much as it on employee salaries, unlike a market building strategy. A market building strategy has part of their focus on supporting the economy of their country. They do this by having jobs for Americans instead of workers in other countries. An example of a company with a market building strategy would be Ford, and one for a cost-minimizing company would be Nike.

Comparing Market Building Strategies and Cost Minimizing Strategies

While it is not black and white, most globalized companies fall into two categories. Some corporations pursue market-building strategy, they tend to invest in human rights and treat their workers well; while other corporations pursue cost-minimizing strategy tend to use outsourcing and other strategies to get around human rights requirements. Market-building companies tend to make long-term investments that are unlikely to produce immediate profit. Cost-minimizing companies tend to make short-term investments cut corners, out source, and any other strategy to get around restrictions involving human rights. They will use low wages, poor quality, long hours, and bad health conditions to save money. An example of this is oil companies such as Shell's experience in Nigeria. They were taking advantage of Nigeria’s lack of human rights restrictions. This allowed them to work their workers as long as they wanted, pay them close to nothing, and have little or no health care. They also ended up working against a movement for rights for rights for the Ogoni people.

There's good companies, and bad companies

Economy plays a huge role in human rights, and corporations influence the economy greatly. Corporations can conduct business in two ways: in a cost-minimizing economy, and in a market-building economy. Cost-minimizing strategies are generally tougher on workers and will employ almost any strategy to increase profits. This includes horrible working conditions, outsourcing to foreign, cheaper workers, cutting corners on costs, etc. Cost-minimizing corporations do not plan for a better future, and some examples of such corporations are Nike. Market-building strategies take into account the future of humanity and human rights, and will often spend money on world-building programs like green technologies, worker's rights, and support for thier native country and people. Such corporations actually care about serving thier investors and bettering the world.

The role of Global Companies in Human Rights

The role that global companies play in human rights depends on their market strategy. A market building strategy typically does not directly violate human rights. A company that employs this strategy will make significant investments unlikely to produce immediate profits. As a result, these companies tend to have a bigger commitment to the people and the countries that they operate in. Two examples of companies that follow a market building strategy are BASF and Motorola.

A cost-minimizing strategy is the other kind of strategy that a company may follow. This strategy usually drives the company to increase profits at the employee’s expense. If a company can produce their product at a lower price if they manufacture it in another country, they will due to competition. However, what allows them to produce their products at a cheaper cost is their disregard for the human rights of their workers. Two examples of companies that follow a cost-minimizing strategy are Levi and Nike.

What should the United States do?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is causing incredible amounts of tension not only in Israel and Palestine, across the world. The United States is stuck in the middle of the conflict. For the most part, it’s Israel on one side with the support of the U.S. and several European countries. On the other side we have Palestine with the support of many other Middle Eastern countries and is reaching out for Arab support. Israel is an important U.S. ally and over the years we have continued to show our support. In the past few decades the United States has also been building relations with other countries in the Middle East.

The United States is in a difficult situation. If the U.S. decided to become impartial to the conflict and simply do nothing it would upset a key U.S. ally and possibly send the conflict into a downward spiral. On the other hand, if the United States were increase their support for Israel it would upset many of the countries in the volatile Middle East and most likely damage or destroy political relations with many Middle Eastern countries. To be honest I can't make a concrete decision about what I think the U.S. should do but for the mean time I would continue our support for Israel until the US believes that Palestine should be granted statehood.