The United States is at war; not with a nation or an army, not with a visible target, but with an idea: we are at war with Radical Islam. Osama and Al Qaeda have sworn to kill every American Infidel, and we are engaged against this threat all over the world. From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Indonesia to Detroit, we fight each other. This war isn’t like any other, with civilized rules of engagement and fail safes. This is a full out no-holds-barred brawl, with winner take all and the loser condemned to a fate worse than death. But while we have sworn to destroy Radical Islam, and are actively engaged in fighting it, we have failed to apply one of the oldest and simplest rules of warfare: cut off the head and the body dies. Every nation, military, cooperation, group, and network has a head, and Radical Islam’s resides in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are the biggest funders of Radical Islam and terrorist activities on the planet. Saudi billionaires routinely donate millions of dollars to Islamic “charities” which use the money to pay for suicide bombers and indoctrinate young men in religious institutions. Osama himself is a Saudi Millionaire who used his father’s fortune to create Al-Qaeda. The supermajority of the 9/11 hijackers came from, you guessed it, Saudi Arabia. The Wahabi faith, which is the foundation on which the radicals wage their war, was largely founded and is largely based in Saudi Arabia. The Wahabi clerics take young men into their religious institutions and indoctrinate them into hating the West and all Infidels. The House of Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, does nothing to curb terrorist financing or activities within their nation for fear of getting overthrown. President Bush stated “We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor and fund them”. So why does the House of Saud get a free pass you ask? Because they have oil. We are dependent on Saudi oil, which keeps our cars running and our businesses prosperous. We buy their oil; the money goes to the Saudi Royal Family, which in turn either spends the money on themselves or gives it to the clerics that train the terrorists. In short, every time you fill up at the pump, you are, in part, paying for another suicide bomber. There are those in the House of Saud that recognize the danger of Radical Islam and work with us to eradicate it. They are few, however, compared to the other members of the family who either turn a blind eye or actively support the radical clerics. The King of Saudi Arabia has the unenviable job of being both America’s friend and champion of Islam. If he missteps, he’s removed by an Islamic Revolution.
Opponents of this policy point out that the United States is dependent on Saudi Arabia; if we force them to take a tough stand on terrorism, they could respond by cutting off our oil supply and ruining our economy. While I understand these people’s fears, I think they are hiding behind the oil argument rather than being forced to recognize the truth. We cannot let other nations threaten us when they overtly or covertly fund and train our enemies. It is time to apply President Bush’s assessment to the Saudis. We must make the House of Saud recognize the cancer that Radical Islam has become and how that cancer has taken hold of their country. We must stand by them to help eradicate the tumor before it destroys the body. We cannot bury our head in the sand any longer.
We must do all that is necessary to combat terrorism everywhere, even in and especially in Saudi Arabia. If we leave it untouched, the terrorists will just regroup, rearm, and retrain to attack us again. The only way to destroy Radical Islam once and for all is to cut off the head, and the head resides in Saudi Arabia.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Op Ed Questions
Joey
1) Yes
2) Yes but Joey also provides logical analysis and compelling personal stories to back up his point
3) He kinda does but it's clear that he doesn't much care for the liberal's point of view
4) It is very interesting
5) His paragraphs are very well structured
6) Each paragraph supports his thesis
7) His writing is blunt so yes it's clear
1) Yes
2) Yes but Joey also provides logical analysis and compelling personal stories to back up his point
3) He kinda does but it's clear that he doesn't much care for the liberal's point of view
4) It is very interesting
5) His paragraphs are very well structured
6) Each paragraph supports his thesis
7) His writing is blunt so yes it's clear
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Saudi Arabia Editorial rough draft
The United States is at war; not with a nation or an army, not with a visible target, but with an idea: we are at war with Radical Islam. Osama and Al Qaeda have sworn to kill every American Infidel, and we are engaged against this threat all over the world. From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Indonesia to Detroit, we fight each other. This war isn’t like any other, with civilized rules of engagement and fail safes. This is a full out no-holds-barred brawl, with winner take all and the loser dying. But while we have sworn to destroy Radical Islam, and are actively engaged in fighting it, we have failed to apply one of the oldest and simplest rules of warfare: cut off the head and the body dies. Every military, cooperation, group, and network has a head, and Radical Islam’s resides in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are the biggest funders of Radical Islam and terrorist activities on the planet. Saudi billionaires routinely donate millions of dollars to Islamic “charities” which use the money to pay for suicide bombers and indoctrinate young men in religious institutions. The Wahabi faith, which is the foundation on which the radicals wage their war, was largely founded and is largely based in Saudi Arabia. The Wahabi clerics take young men into their religious institutions and indoctrinate them into hating the West and all Infidels. The House of Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, does nothing to curb terrorist financing or activities within their nation for fear of getting overthrown. President Bush stated “We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor and fund them”. So why does the House of Saud get a free pass you ask? Because they have oil. We are dependent on Saudi oil, which keeps our cars running and our businesses prosperous. We buy their oil; the money goes to the Saudi Royal Family, which in turn gives it to the clerics that train the terrorists. In short, every time you fill up at the pump, you’re paying for another suicide bomber. There are those in the House of Saud that recognize the danger of Radical Islam and work with us to eradicate it. They are few, however, compared to the other members of the family who either turn a blind eye or actively support the radical clerics. The King of Saudi Arabia has the unenviable job of being both America’s friend and champion of Islam. If he missteps, he’s removed by an Islamic Revolution. We must do all that is necessary to combat terrorism everywhere, even in and especially in Saudi Arabia. If we leave it untouched, the terrorists will just regroup, rearm, and retrain to attack us again. The only way to destroy Radical Islam once and for all is to cut off the head, and the head resides in Saudi Arabia.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Editorial prewriting
1) We are so concerned over our own lives and meaningless things that we don't see the big picture. We don't care what's going on nationally or around the world as long as the caribou is still open and our cars are still running.
2)I think our generation in particular should wake up and realize that there is more to life then high school and we will soon be in the position of having to come up with the solutions to the problems that our parents are passing on to us.
3)To inform other students about a subject that normally no one would hear about.
4)-Evidence
-Logic
-historical examples
- foreshadowing
5)I will show the consequences of the result if we fail to act
6)It will educate them on a subject no one really cares about
2)I think our generation in particular should wake up and realize that there is more to life then high school and we will soon be in the position of having to come up with the solutions to the problems that our parents are passing on to us.
3)To inform other students about a subject that normally no one would hear about.
4)-Evidence
-Logic
-historical examples
- foreshadowing
5)I will show the consequences of the result if we fail to act
6)It will educate them on a subject no one really cares about
Monday, March 15, 2010
Iraq war final draft
The newest edition of Newsweek magazine has created quite a stir. Proclaiming “Victory at Last” on the cover with a subscript saying “The Emergence of a Democratic Iraq”, Newsweek has taken front and center attention by proclaiming the war in Iraq has been won. Even more interesting, however, is the picture of President Bush gracing the cover. With “Bush’s war” having a very low public appeal for most of his second term in office, it’s curious to me that Newsweek would choose him as their poster boy. Newsweek’s claims of victory have been echoed by the Wall Street Journal, but both have the same evidence backing them up. Citing the successful elections conducted a short time ago and the increased involvement and efficiency of the Iraqi security forces, Americans are starting to see the light at the end of a very dark and twisted tunnel. The beginnings of this conflict have their roots 8 long years ago, before the iphone and just as American Idol was starting. Most of us don’t remember that far back; what we thought of the war at the beginning or what we thought we were getting in to. When the War in Iraq is brought up, one of three things jump into people’s minds: “Bush Lied about them WMD’s” “I hate Bush” and finally “We should never have gone in the first place (see #1 and #2)”. We don’t remember the triumphs, the sacrifices, and the hard work that got us to “Victory at last”. Now that the war has been officially called in favor of the United States, I think it would be healthy for us if we took a step back and examined the war in its entirety. We will start with the invasion and the successes of our armed forces in reaching Baghdad and the capture of Saddam. We will then look at the middle years; what went right, what went wrong, success, failure, mistakes, triumphs, you get the drill. Finally we will look at the surge up to this point in time (I.E. March 2010). Throughout all of this, I will document people’s attitudes toward the war: what they thought in the beginning, what they thought in the middle, and what they think now. Ok; enough orientation and ground rules, let’s get started.
The Iraq war started, as wars often do, over incompetence and misinformation. Back in 2002, the United States and several other nations became concerned over Iraq’s ability to field weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11 had only been a few short months prior, weapons of mass destruction were on the hot seat. It was here that the first mistake was made. President Bush decided to go to the UN about WMD concerns. The UN, as it is wont to do, deliberated and flip-flopped and listened to the French and a whole plethora of pointless deliberation over the problem before finally appointing a commission to look into the problem. The commission decided to send weapons inspectors into Iraq to find these weapons. Time goes by, the world gets impatient, and finally the inspectors come back saying they aren’t receiving cooperation. Hans Blix, the head honcho for the weapons inspectors, gets pushed around and bullied by Saddam so much that he returns to New York. That was enough for us. On the night of March 19, 2003, about half an hour after the first airstrikes introduced “shock and awe” into Baghdad, President Bush laid out the reasoning for war. “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” This was recorded in Time magazine on March 20, 2003. Congress stood by the President, giving him the green light with a 77-23 vote in the Senate and a 296-133 vote in the House (recorded by CNN on Oct. 11, 2002). The resolution had a bipartisan consensus, with prominent Democrats and Republicans supporting the President. Americans also stood by the President in the early days. Kyle, a college freshman, says “I supported the war because terrorism was a more recent threat back then, with 9/11 being only the year before, and it needed to be stopped”. Overall, 72% favored the war at the outset, according to an ABC and Washington Post poll. On the battlefield, our military cut through any Iraqi units that stood in our path and soon was in Baghdad. After a couple months, the nation was in our hands and Saddam had been captured. The first phase of the war was over as President Bush proudly proclaimed “mission accomplished” aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.
You know the old adage “you broke it you bought it”? It works great for a broken lamp but takes a little patience in a broken country. The U.S. shot Iraq to hell killing the insurgents and looking for Saddam, and now it was time to fix it. And so began the long process of reconstruction. An interim government and constitution was approved and everything looked to be going pretty well. This is where we made our second big mistake: we disbanded the Iraqi army on the notion that they had all been brainwashed by Saddam. We pink slipped hundreds of thousands of young men with military training and nothing else to their name. You see the problem don’t you? That’s when Al Qaeda decided to cash in on the whole “Infidels on sacred Muslim soil; must destroy” bit and cranked up the suicide bombers and RPG’s. Over the next few years, the United States were engaged in a cage match with the Insurgency, soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire. Casualties started to mount, the world went up to the attic and dug up the old “we hate America” signs, and public approval plummeted. Bush went from popular to unpopular overnight, with the Democrats using this hostility to win back Congress in 2006. With each evening news cast leading off with more deaths in Iraq, the public wanted less and less to do with the nation. 2004-2007 were years of trial and frustration towards the war. Ryan, another college freshman attending the U of M, said “I was very opposed to the war at that time, especially before the counter-insurgency tactics implemented by petraeus. We didn't seem to be getting anywhere or have a plan for success". Casualties mounted, the insurgency seemed unstoppable, and we grew weary. We wanted out; the Democrats routinely stated “the war is lost”. Pressure mounted for the President to give up and pull up stakes. Clearly, something drastic needed to be done in order to save Iraq. The answer, however, was counter to everything we wanted our thought was needed: more troops.
In late 2007, President Bush announced that 20,000 additional troops were headed to Iraq. Their mission was to take Baghdad away from the terrorists once and for all and from there to create security zones throughout Iraq so business and social work could finally begin. The plan was met with dismay and disgust by the media and politicians. Parallels were drawn between Iraq and Vietnam, with commentators and “experts” saying it will never work and just bathe Iraq in more American and Iraqi blood. Then, a surprise: the surge started to work. Under the capable leadership of General David Patraeus, the influx of new troops turned the tide in the war and secured Baghdad. With the help of newly trained Iraqi security units, American forces pushed the terrorists out of province after province. Soon after, a scene of joy and disbelief as American forces turned over control of Baghdad (codenamed the “Green Zone”) to the Iraqis. Today, the war is drawing to a close. When asked what she thought of how the war is going now, Julia (an Eastview senior) said “Isn’t it over?”. American forces are quickly being replaced by Iraqi units, while the new Iraqi government holds elections with over 70% turnout rates. Terrorists try to disrupt these elections but fail at every turn. “The bombs no longer intimidate us” an Iraqi said during the latest election “When we hear the explosions, we defy them rather than cower from them” (recorded in the Wall Street Journal). Iraq is quickly turning what was once seen as a basket case into a governable free society. Iraqi courts, businesses, and government agencies are now open for business. The American presence is becoming less and less visible as Iraqi security units now shoulder much of the burden that our troops held for 7 years. This week’s Newsweek has proclaimed that victory has come at last. Others are taking up the call with joyous fervor. It seems that all there is left to do is offer congratulations. Congratulations Iraq. Congratulations American servicemen. Congratulations President Bush. Congratulations Iraqis who no longer fear terrorism. Iraq is now a free democracy in the center of a continent full of despotism and injustice. Congratulations.
The Iraq war started, as wars often do, over incompetence and misinformation. Back in 2002, the United States and several other nations became concerned over Iraq’s ability to field weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11 had only been a few short months prior, weapons of mass destruction were on the hot seat. It was here that the first mistake was made. President Bush decided to go to the UN about WMD concerns. The UN, as it is wont to do, deliberated and flip-flopped and listened to the French and a whole plethora of pointless deliberation over the problem before finally appointing a commission to look into the problem. The commission decided to send weapons inspectors into Iraq to find these weapons. Time goes by, the world gets impatient, and finally the inspectors come back saying they aren’t receiving cooperation. Hans Blix, the head honcho for the weapons inspectors, gets pushed around and bullied by Saddam so much that he returns to New York. That was enough for us. On the night of March 19, 2003, about half an hour after the first airstrikes introduced “shock and awe” into Baghdad, President Bush laid out the reasoning for war. “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” This was recorded in Time magazine on March 20, 2003. Congress stood by the President, giving him the green light with a 77-23 vote in the Senate and a 296-133 vote in the House (recorded by CNN on Oct. 11, 2002). The resolution had a bipartisan consensus, with prominent Democrats and Republicans supporting the President. Americans also stood by the President in the early days. Kyle, a college freshman, says “I supported the war because terrorism was a more recent threat back then, with 9/11 being only the year before, and it needed to be stopped”. Overall, 72% favored the war at the outset, according to an ABC and Washington Post poll. On the battlefield, our military cut through any Iraqi units that stood in our path and soon was in Baghdad. After a couple months, the nation was in our hands and Saddam had been captured. The first phase of the war was over as President Bush proudly proclaimed “mission accomplished” aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.
You know the old adage “you broke it you bought it”? It works great for a broken lamp but takes a little patience in a broken country. The U.S. shot Iraq to hell killing the insurgents and looking for Saddam, and now it was time to fix it. And so began the long process of reconstruction. An interim government and constitution was approved and everything looked to be going pretty well. This is where we made our second big mistake: we disbanded the Iraqi army on the notion that they had all been brainwashed by Saddam. We pink slipped hundreds of thousands of young men with military training and nothing else to their name. You see the problem don’t you? That’s when Al Qaeda decided to cash in on the whole “Infidels on sacred Muslim soil; must destroy” bit and cranked up the suicide bombers and RPG’s. Over the next few years, the United States were engaged in a cage match with the Insurgency, soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire. Casualties started to mount, the world went up to the attic and dug up the old “we hate America” signs, and public approval plummeted. Bush went from popular to unpopular overnight, with the Democrats using this hostility to win back Congress in 2006. With each evening news cast leading off with more deaths in Iraq, the public wanted less and less to do with the nation. 2004-2007 were years of trial and frustration towards the war. Ryan, another college freshman attending the U of M, said “I was very opposed to the war at that time, especially before the counter-insurgency tactics implemented by petraeus. We didn't seem to be getting anywhere or have a plan for success". Casualties mounted, the insurgency seemed unstoppable, and we grew weary. We wanted out; the Democrats routinely stated “the war is lost”. Pressure mounted for the President to give up and pull up stakes. Clearly, something drastic needed to be done in order to save Iraq. The answer, however, was counter to everything we wanted our thought was needed: more troops.
In late 2007, President Bush announced that 20,000 additional troops were headed to Iraq. Their mission was to take Baghdad away from the terrorists once and for all and from there to create security zones throughout Iraq so business and social work could finally begin. The plan was met with dismay and disgust by the media and politicians. Parallels were drawn between Iraq and Vietnam, with commentators and “experts” saying it will never work and just bathe Iraq in more American and Iraqi blood. Then, a surprise: the surge started to work. Under the capable leadership of General David Patraeus, the influx of new troops turned the tide in the war and secured Baghdad. With the help of newly trained Iraqi security units, American forces pushed the terrorists out of province after province. Soon after, a scene of joy and disbelief as American forces turned over control of Baghdad (codenamed the “Green Zone”) to the Iraqis. Today, the war is drawing to a close. When asked what she thought of how the war is going now, Julia (an Eastview senior) said “Isn’t it over?”. American forces are quickly being replaced by Iraqi units, while the new Iraqi government holds elections with over 70% turnout rates. Terrorists try to disrupt these elections but fail at every turn. “The bombs no longer intimidate us” an Iraqi said during the latest election “When we hear the explosions, we defy them rather than cower from them” (recorded in the Wall Street Journal). Iraq is quickly turning what was once seen as a basket case into a governable free society. Iraqi courts, businesses, and government agencies are now open for business. The American presence is becoming less and less visible as Iraqi security units now shoulder much of the burden that our troops held for 7 years. This week’s Newsweek has proclaimed that victory has come at last. Others are taking up the call with joyous fervor. It seems that all there is left to do is offer congratulations. Congratulations Iraq. Congratulations American servicemen. Congratulations President Bush. Congratulations Iraqis who no longer fear terrorism. Iraq is now a free democracy in the center of a continent full of despotism and injustice. Congratulations.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Iraq war article
The newest edition of Newsweek magazine has created quite a stir. Proclaiming “Victory at Last” on the cover and going on to say “The Emergence of a Democratic Iraq”, Newsweek has taken front and center attention by proclaiming the war in Iraq has been won. Even more interesting, however, is the picture of President Bush gracing the cover. With “Bush’s war” having a very low public appeal for most of his second term in office, it’s curious to me that Newsweek would choose him as their cover boy. Newsweek’s claims of victory have been echoed by the Wall Street Journal, but both have the same evidence backing up their claims. Citing the successful elections conducted a short time ago and the increased involvement and efficiency of the Iraqi security forces, Americans are starting to see the light at the end of a very dark tunnel. The beginnings of this conflict have their roots 8 long years ago, before the iphone and just as American Idol was starting. Most of us don’t remember that far back; what we thought of the war at the beginning or what we thought we were getting in to. When the War in Iraq is brought up, one of three things jump into people’s minds: “Bush Lied about them WMD’s” “I hate Bush” and finally “We should never have gone in the first place”. We don’t remember the triumphs, the sacrifices, and the hard work that got us to “Victory at last”. Now that the war has been officially called in favor of the United States, I think it would be healthy for us if we took a step back and examined the war in its entirety. We will start with the invasion and the successes of our armed forces in reaching Baghdad and the capture of Saddam. We will then look at the middle years; what went right, what went wrong, success, failure, mistakes, triumphs, you get the drill. Finally we will look at the surge up to this point in time (I.E. March 2010). Throughout all of this, I will document people’s attitudes toward the war: what they thought in the beginning, what they thought in the middle, and what they think now. Ok; enough orientation and ground rules, let’s get started.
The Iraq war started, as wars often do, over incompetence and misinformation. Back in 2002, the United States and several other nations became concerned over Iraq’s ability to field weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11 had only been a few short months prior, weapons of mass destruction were on the hot seat. It was here that the first mistake was made. President Bush decided to go to the UN about WMD concerns. The UN, as it is wont to do, deliberated and flip-flopped and listened to the French and a whole plethora of pointless deliberation over the problem before finally appointing a commission to look into the problem. The commission decided to send weapons inspectors into Iraq to find these weapons. Time goes by, the world gets impatient, and finally the inspectors come back saying they aren’t receiving cooperation. Hans Blix, the head honcho for the weapons inspectors, gets pushed around and bullied by Saddam so much that he returns to New York. That was enough for us. On the night of March 19, 2003, about half an hour after the first airstrikes, President Bush laid out the reasoning for war. “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” This was recorded in Time magazine on March 20, 2003. Congress stood by the President, giving him the green light with a 77-23 vote in the Senate and a 296-133 vote in the House (recorded by CNN on Oct. 11, 2002). Americans also stood by the President in the early days. Kyle, a college freshman, says “I supported the war because terrorism was a more recent threat back then, with 9/11 being only the year before, and it needed to be stopped”. Overall, 72% favored the war at the outset, according to an ABC and Washington Post poll. On the battlefield, our military cut through any Iraqi units that stood in our path and soon was in Baghdad. After a couple months, the nation was in our hands and Saddam had been captured. The first phase of the war was over as President Bush proudly proclaimed “mission accomplished” aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.
You know the old adage “you broke it you bought it”? It works great for a broken lamp but takes a little patience in a broken country. The U.S. shot Iraq to hell killing the insurgents and looking for Saddam, and now it was time to fix it. And so began the long process of reconstruction. An interim government and constitution was approved and everything looked to be going pretty well. That’s when Al Qaeda decided to cash in on the whole “Infidels on sacred Muslim soil; must destroy” bit and cranked up the suicide bombers. Over the next few years, the United States were engaged in a cage match with the Insurgency, soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire. Casualties started to mount, the world started to hate America again, and public approval plummeted. Bush went from popular to unpopular overnight, with the Democrats using this hostility to win back Congress in 2006. With each evening news cast leading off with more deaths in Iraq, the public wanted less and less to do with the nation. 2004-2007 were years of trial and frustration towards the war. Ryan, another college freshman attending the U of M, said “I was very opposed to the war at that time, especially before the counter-insurgency tactics implemented by petraeus. We didn't seem to be getting anywhere or have a plan for success". Casualties mounted, the insurgency seemed unstoppable, and we grew weary. We wanted out; the Democrats routinely stated “the war is lost”. Pressure mounted for the President to give up and pull up stakes. Clearly, something drastic needed to be done in order to save Iraq. The answer, however, was counter to everything we wanted our thought was needed: more troops.
In late 2007, President Bush announced that 20,000 additional troops were headed to Iraq. Their mission was to take Baghdad away from the terrorists once and for all and from there to create security zones throughout Iraq. The plan was met with dismay and disgust by the media and politicians. Parallels were drawn between Iraq and Vietnam, with commentators and “experts” saying it will never work and just bathe Iraq in more American and Iraqi blood. Then, a surprise: the surge was working. Under the capable leadership of General Patraeus, the influx of new troops turned the tide in the war and secured Baghdad. With the help of newly trained Iraqi security units, American forces pushed the terrorists out of province after province. Soon after, a scene of joy and disbelief as American forces turned over control of Baghdad (codenamed the “Green Zone”) to the Iraqis. Today, the war is drawing to a close. When asked what she thought of how the war is going now, Julia ( an Eastview senior) said “Isn’t it over?”. American forces are quickly being replaced by Iraqi units, while the new Iraqi government holds elections with over 70% turnout rates. Terrorists try to disrupt these elections but fail at every turn. “The bombs no longer intimidate us” an Iraqi said during the latest election “When we hear the explosions, we defy them rather than cower from them” (recorded in the Wall Street Journal). Iraq is quickly turning what was once seen as a basket case into a governable free society. Iraqi courts, businesses, and government agencies are now open for business. The American presence is becoming less and less visible as Iraqi security units now shoulder much of the burden that our troops held for 7 years. This week’s Newsweek has proclaimed that victory has come at last. Others are taking up the call with joyous fervor. It seems that all there is left to do is offer congratulations. Congratulations Iraq. Congratulations American servicemen. Congratulations President Bush. Congratulations Iraqis who no longer fear terrorism. Iraq is now a free democracy in the center of despotism and injustice. Congratulations.
The Iraq war started, as wars often do, over incompetence and misinformation. Back in 2002, the United States and several other nations became concerned over Iraq’s ability to field weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11 had only been a few short months prior, weapons of mass destruction were on the hot seat. It was here that the first mistake was made. President Bush decided to go to the UN about WMD concerns. The UN, as it is wont to do, deliberated and flip-flopped and listened to the French and a whole plethora of pointless deliberation over the problem before finally appointing a commission to look into the problem. The commission decided to send weapons inspectors into Iraq to find these weapons. Time goes by, the world gets impatient, and finally the inspectors come back saying they aren’t receiving cooperation. Hans Blix, the head honcho for the weapons inspectors, gets pushed around and bullied by Saddam so much that he returns to New York. That was enough for us. On the night of March 19, 2003, about half an hour after the first airstrikes, President Bush laid out the reasoning for war. “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” This was recorded in Time magazine on March 20, 2003. Congress stood by the President, giving him the green light with a 77-23 vote in the Senate and a 296-133 vote in the House (recorded by CNN on Oct. 11, 2002). Americans also stood by the President in the early days. Kyle, a college freshman, says “I supported the war because terrorism was a more recent threat back then, with 9/11 being only the year before, and it needed to be stopped”. Overall, 72% favored the war at the outset, according to an ABC and Washington Post poll. On the battlefield, our military cut through any Iraqi units that stood in our path and soon was in Baghdad. After a couple months, the nation was in our hands and Saddam had been captured. The first phase of the war was over as President Bush proudly proclaimed “mission accomplished” aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.
You know the old adage “you broke it you bought it”? It works great for a broken lamp but takes a little patience in a broken country. The U.S. shot Iraq to hell killing the insurgents and looking for Saddam, and now it was time to fix it. And so began the long process of reconstruction. An interim government and constitution was approved and everything looked to be going pretty well. That’s when Al Qaeda decided to cash in on the whole “Infidels on sacred Muslim soil; must destroy” bit and cranked up the suicide bombers. Over the next few years, the United States were engaged in a cage match with the Insurgency, soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire. Casualties started to mount, the world started to hate America again, and public approval plummeted. Bush went from popular to unpopular overnight, with the Democrats using this hostility to win back Congress in 2006. With each evening news cast leading off with more deaths in Iraq, the public wanted less and less to do with the nation. 2004-2007 were years of trial and frustration towards the war. Ryan, another college freshman attending the U of M, said “I was very opposed to the war at that time, especially before the counter-insurgency tactics implemented by petraeus. We didn't seem to be getting anywhere or have a plan for success". Casualties mounted, the insurgency seemed unstoppable, and we grew weary. We wanted out; the Democrats routinely stated “the war is lost”. Pressure mounted for the President to give up and pull up stakes. Clearly, something drastic needed to be done in order to save Iraq. The answer, however, was counter to everything we wanted our thought was needed: more troops.
In late 2007, President Bush announced that 20,000 additional troops were headed to Iraq. Their mission was to take Baghdad away from the terrorists once and for all and from there to create security zones throughout Iraq. The plan was met with dismay and disgust by the media and politicians. Parallels were drawn between Iraq and Vietnam, with commentators and “experts” saying it will never work and just bathe Iraq in more American and Iraqi blood. Then, a surprise: the surge was working. Under the capable leadership of General Patraeus, the influx of new troops turned the tide in the war and secured Baghdad. With the help of newly trained Iraqi security units, American forces pushed the terrorists out of province after province. Soon after, a scene of joy and disbelief as American forces turned over control of Baghdad (codenamed the “Green Zone”) to the Iraqis. Today, the war is drawing to a close. When asked what she thought of how the war is going now, Julia ( an Eastview senior) said “Isn’t it over?”. American forces are quickly being replaced by Iraqi units, while the new Iraqi government holds elections with over 70% turnout rates. Terrorists try to disrupt these elections but fail at every turn. “The bombs no longer intimidate us” an Iraqi said during the latest election “When we hear the explosions, we defy them rather than cower from them” (recorded in the Wall Street Journal). Iraq is quickly turning what was once seen as a basket case into a governable free society. Iraqi courts, businesses, and government agencies are now open for business. The American presence is becoming less and less visible as Iraqi security units now shoulder much of the burden that our troops held for 7 years. This week’s Newsweek has proclaimed that victory has come at last. Others are taking up the call with joyous fervor. It seems that all there is left to do is offer congratulations. Congratulations Iraq. Congratulations American servicemen. Congratulations President Bush. Congratulations Iraqis who no longer fear terrorism. Iraq is now a free democracy in the center of despotism and injustice. Congratulations.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Feature Article Answers
Kyle
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
"I supported it because terrorism was more recent and needed to be stopped"
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
"We might as well finish because we're there now"
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
"We maybe should start leaving unless we're needed"
4) Have we won or is there still work that needs to be done before we can say that?
"We're pretty much done. We've done everything that needs to be done"
5) Who do you think deserves credit or recognition for the way things have turned out?
"Whoever was in command during the most amount of time"
Ryan
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
"i hesitantly supported it based on the WMD "evidence" i was opposed as soon as i knew there weren't WMD's in iraq."
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
"i was very opposed to it. especially before the counter-insurgency tactics implemented by petraeus. we didn't seem to be getting anywhere or have a plan for success"
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
"i think the US is starting to be successful. conflict is down, and the elections (at least what we know so far) were fair and honest. it would be nice to see less governmental corruption, but at least Iraq's biggest concern isn't military conflict anymore
4) Do you think criticism of a war is healthy for a democracy or should it be discouraged?
"i think it is healthy. war should not be something a government is untouchable on. i think iraq is actually a great example of why it is. people's concerns of US direction in Iraq helped lead to the change in tactics through Petraeus
5) What do you think of politicians flip-flopping their support of the war to stay consistent with the public's mood?
"that's bull. politicians should be allowed to change their opinions based on facts on the ground, but that should be the ONLY thing."
Julia
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
"I thought it was pointless. We shouldn't've done it"
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
"I thought that we need to help the people get back on their feet and start running their country the way they want to not by one man who makes all the rules"
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
"Isnt it over?"
4)Should Bush get some credit for the way Iraq's shaping up to be? What should he get credit for if he deserves any?
"I think so because he initialy started alot of the projects that Obama had to finish and even though he did a bad job he still did the best he could. If we didnt go to war we prob wouldnt be the way we are now"
5) Should we even be in Iraq?
"Yes because they need the help if we didn't help them who would?"
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
"I supported it because terrorism was more recent and needed to be stopped"
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
"We might as well finish because we're there now"
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
"We maybe should start leaving unless we're needed"
4) Have we won or is there still work that needs to be done before we can say that?
"We're pretty much done. We've done everything that needs to be done"
5) Who do you think deserves credit or recognition for the way things have turned out?
"Whoever was in command during the most amount of time"
Ryan
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
"i hesitantly supported it based on the WMD "evidence" i was opposed as soon as i knew there weren't WMD's in iraq."
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
"i was very opposed to it. especially before the counter-insurgency tactics implemented by petraeus. we didn't seem to be getting anywhere or have a plan for success"
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
"i think the US is starting to be successful. conflict is down, and the elections (at least what we know so far) were fair and honest. it would be nice to see less governmental corruption, but at least Iraq's biggest concern isn't military conflict anymore
4) Do you think criticism of a war is healthy for a democracy or should it be discouraged?
"i think it is healthy. war should not be something a government is untouchable on. i think iraq is actually a great example of why it is. people's concerns of US direction in Iraq helped lead to the change in tactics through Petraeus
5) What do you think of politicians flip-flopping their support of the war to stay consistent with the public's mood?
"that's bull. politicians should be allowed to change their opinions based on facts on the ground, but that should be the ONLY thing."
Julia
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
"I thought it was pointless. We shouldn't've done it"
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
"I thought that we need to help the people get back on their feet and start running their country the way they want to not by one man who makes all the rules"
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
"Isnt it over?"
4)Should Bush get some credit for the way Iraq's shaping up to be? What should he get credit for if he deserves any?
"I think so because he initialy started alot of the projects that Obama had to finish and even though he did a bad job he still did the best he could. If we didnt go to war we prob wouldnt be the way we are now"
5) Should we even be in Iraq?
"Yes because they need the help if we didn't help them who would?"
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Iraq war interview questions
Kyle
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
4) Have we won or is there still work that needs to be done before we can say that?
5) Who do you think deserves credit or recognition for the way things have turned out?
Paige
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
4) Do you think criticism of a war is healthy for a democracy or should it be discouraged?
5) What do you think of politicians flip-flopping their support of the war to stay consistent with the public's mood?
Jake
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
4) Should Bush get some credit for the way Iraq's shaping up to be? What should he get credit for if he deserves any?
5) Should we even be in Iraq?
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
4) Have we won or is there still work that needs to be done before we can say that?
5) Who do you think deserves credit or recognition for the way things have turned out?
Paige
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
4) Do you think criticism of a war is healthy for a democracy or should it be discouraged?
5) What do you think of politicians flip-flopping their support of the war to stay consistent with the public's mood?
Jake
1) What were your thoughts on the war right when it first started?
2) What were your thoughts of the war in 2007-2008?
3) What are your thoughts on the war now?
4) Should Bush get some credit for the way Iraq's shaping up to be? What should he get credit for if he deserves any?
5) Should we even be in Iraq?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Stadium article final draft
It is crunch time for our favorite team. The Minnesota Vikings are petitioning the state to contribute money towards a new stadium, which would replace the aging Metrodome. The lease on the Metrodome runs out after the 2011 season, and the Vikings would like a new facility either under construction or assented to by that time. There is always the option of renewing the lease, but the team has made it clear that they want to move on. Zygi Wilf, owner of the team, points out that a stadium would be a boon to Minnesota’s economy, providing jobs and revenue for the state while also bringing in bigger events in the near future. The Legislature, however, feels that contributing money towards another sports stadium at this current time would be irresponsible. The Legislature is going through a budget crisis, with a 5 billion dollar deficit projected over the next 2-3 years. There are several different proposals for a stadium on the table right now, consisting of the Wilfs giving most of the money to the state using casino taxes to help fund it. There also is a compromise proposal to just renovate the Metrodome, which would cost the least amount of money but hasn’t been agreed upon by either party. Wilf assures people that the Vikings won’t be leaving Minnesota, but with Los Angeles building a stadium complete with purple seats, the idea may be too tempting to resist. Everyone agrees that time is running out to make a decision.
Minnesotans agree that the Vikings should probably get a new stadium, but are as divided as the negotiators over who should finance it. Kyle, a college freshman, says a mix-and-match approach would make the most sense. “The Taxpayers should contribute to the project”, he said, “But I’d like to see the Wilfs contribute the majority of the money”. John Johnson, a life-long fan and former Federal Reserve manager, agrees with this assessment. “Why should we pay for a billionaire’s private playground? It makes no sense with our current situation”. Jacob, a high school freshman and football player himself, was even blunter. When asked who should pay, he immediately replied “Wilf. 100% Wilf”. There is a growing consensus that the Vikings should take care of their problem themselves. The casino idea for payment, however, was received well. “The casino proposal could finance it” John said, “and the only negative would be taking away revenue from the Indian casinos but they're doing plenty well anyway so it doesn't really matter." While the love of the Vikings runs deep, the desire to hang on to money runs even deeper these days it seems.
While most people are against outright state funding of the project, which would mean either even bigger slashes to current programs or higher taxes, nobody wants to see the team leave. “This team is a huge part of our state,” Kyle said “They bring in revenue we otherwise wouldn’t get and they have entertainment value”. Wary of any new spending, people nevertheless see the Wilf’s point about the aging Metrodome and sympathize with their call for a new facility. Few bathrooms and snack stands along with tiny locker rooms and bad parking combine to make the Wilf’s argument for them. With one of the oldest and smallest stadiums in the league, people agree it’s time to move on. When asked if the Vikings deserve a new stadium, the answer was a resounding “yes”. After years of being considered second rate, the people long for Minnesota to be recognized. “A new stadium would keep all the revenue that booking the stadium would bring and it would make the Twin Cities a big league town which would attract employers and employees" The former Fed manager said. Jacob agreed with the assessment, “The newness factor, bringing in a lot of people, and it would just be awesome for the city itself; this is what a stadium would give to us.”
Nothing is certain yet. The Viking’s ownership and the state are still in gridlock over finance issues; and with 2011 just one short year away, time is quickly running out. The people call for a new stadium, but demand that someone else pay for it. New taxes are seemingly out of the question, with compromise proposals gaining little ground. However, one thing is certain. Within the next year, a decision will be made, and the consensus is hoping to see a wrecking ball outside the Metrodome sometime soon.
Minnesotans agree that the Vikings should probably get a new stadium, but are as divided as the negotiators over who should finance it. Kyle, a college freshman, says a mix-and-match approach would make the most sense. “The Taxpayers should contribute to the project”, he said, “But I’d like to see the Wilfs contribute the majority of the money”. John Johnson, a life-long fan and former Federal Reserve manager, agrees with this assessment. “Why should we pay for a billionaire’s private playground? It makes no sense with our current situation”. Jacob, a high school freshman and football player himself, was even blunter. When asked who should pay, he immediately replied “Wilf. 100% Wilf”. There is a growing consensus that the Vikings should take care of their problem themselves. The casino idea for payment, however, was received well. “The casino proposal could finance it” John said, “and the only negative would be taking away revenue from the Indian casinos but they're doing plenty well anyway so it doesn't really matter." While the love of the Vikings runs deep, the desire to hang on to money runs even deeper these days it seems.
While most people are against outright state funding of the project, which would mean either even bigger slashes to current programs or higher taxes, nobody wants to see the team leave. “This team is a huge part of our state,” Kyle said “They bring in revenue we otherwise wouldn’t get and they have entertainment value”. Wary of any new spending, people nevertheless see the Wilf’s point about the aging Metrodome and sympathize with their call for a new facility. Few bathrooms and snack stands along with tiny locker rooms and bad parking combine to make the Wilf’s argument for them. With one of the oldest and smallest stadiums in the league, people agree it’s time to move on. When asked if the Vikings deserve a new stadium, the answer was a resounding “yes”. After years of being considered second rate, the people long for Minnesota to be recognized. “A new stadium would keep all the revenue that booking the stadium would bring and it would make the Twin Cities a big league town which would attract employers and employees" The former Fed manager said. Jacob agreed with the assessment, “The newness factor, bringing in a lot of people, and it would just be awesome for the city itself; this is what a stadium would give to us.”
Nothing is certain yet. The Viking’s ownership and the state are still in gridlock over finance issues; and with 2011 just one short year away, time is quickly running out. The people call for a new stadium, but demand that someone else pay for it. New taxes are seemingly out of the question, with compromise proposals gaining little ground. However, one thing is certain. Within the next year, a decision will be made, and the consensus is hoping to see a wrecking ball outside the Metrodome sometime soon.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Vikings stadium article
It is crunch time for our favorite team. The Minnesota Vikings are petitioning the state to contribute money towards a new stadium, which would replace the aging metrodome. The lease on the Metrodome runs out after the 2011 season, and the Vikings would like a new facility either under construction or assented to by that time. There is always the option of renewing the lease, but the team has made it clear they want to move on. Zygi Wilf, owner of the team, points out that a stadium would be a boon to the Minnesota economy, providing jobs and revenue for the state while also bringing in bigger events in the near future. The Legislature, however, feels that contributing money towards another sports stadium at this current time would be irresponsible. The Legislature is going through a budget crisis, with a 5 billion dollar deficit projected over the next 2-3 years. There are several different proposals for a stadium on the table right now, consisting of the Wilfs giving most of the money to the state using casino taxes to help fund it. There also is a compromise proposal to just renovate the Metrodome, which would cost the least amount of money but hasn’t been agreed upon by both parties. Wilf assures people that the Vikings won’t be leaving Minnesota, but with Los Angeles building a stadium complete with purple seats, the idea may be too tempting to resist. Everyone agrees that time is running out to make a decision.
Minnesotans agree that the Vikings should probably get a new stadium, but are as divided as the negotiators over who should finance it. Kyle, a college freshman, says a mix-and-match approach would make the most sense. “The Taxpayers should contribute to the project”, he said, “But I’d like to see the Wilfs contribute the majority of the money”. John Johnson, a life-long fan and former Federal Reserve manager, agrees with this assessment. “Why should we pay for a billionaire’s private playground? It makes no sense with our current situation”. Jacob, a high school freshman and football player himself, was even blunter. When asked who should pay, he immediately replied “Wilf. 100% Wilf”. There is a growing consensus that the Vikings should take care of their problem themselves. The casino idea for payment, however, was received well. “The casino proposal could finance it” John said, “and the only negative would be taking away revenue from the Indian casinos but they're doing plenty well anyway so it doesn't really matter." While the love of the Vikings runs deep, the desire to hang on to money runs even deeper these days it seems.
While most people are against outright state funding of the project, which would mean either even bigger slashes to current programs or higher taxes, nobody wants to see the team leave. “This team is a huge part of our state,” Kyle said “They bring in revenue we otherwise wouldn’t get and they have entertainment value”. Wary of the new spending, people nevertheless see the Wilf’s point about the aging Metrodome and sympathize with their call for a new facility. Few bathrooms and snack stands along with tiny locker rooms and bad parking combine to make the Wilf’s argument for them. With one of the oldest and smallest stadiums in the league, people agree it’s time to move on. When asked if the Vikings deserve a new stadium, the answer was a resounding “yes”. After years of being considered second rate, the people long for Minnesota to be recognized. “A new stadium would keep all the revenue that booking the stadium would bring and it would make the Twin Cities a big league town which would attract employers and employees" The former Fed manager said. Jacob agreed with the assessment, “The newness factor, bringing in a lot of people, and it would just be awesome for the city itself; this is what a stadium would give to us.”
Nothing is certain yet. The Viking’s ownership and the state are still in gridlock over finance issues; and with 2011 just one short year away, time is quickly running out. The people call for a new stadium, but demand that someone else pay for it. New taxes are seemingly out of the question, with compromise proposals gaining little ground. However, one thing is certain. Within the next year, a decision will be made, and the consensus is hoping to see a wrecking ball outside the Metrodome sometime soon.
Kyle strutz, John Johnson, and Jacob Davis contributed to this article.
Minnesotans agree that the Vikings should probably get a new stadium, but are as divided as the negotiators over who should finance it. Kyle, a college freshman, says a mix-and-match approach would make the most sense. “The Taxpayers should contribute to the project”, he said, “But I’d like to see the Wilfs contribute the majority of the money”. John Johnson, a life-long fan and former Federal Reserve manager, agrees with this assessment. “Why should we pay for a billionaire’s private playground? It makes no sense with our current situation”. Jacob, a high school freshman and football player himself, was even blunter. When asked who should pay, he immediately replied “Wilf. 100% Wilf”. There is a growing consensus that the Vikings should take care of their problem themselves. The casino idea for payment, however, was received well. “The casino proposal could finance it” John said, “and the only negative would be taking away revenue from the Indian casinos but they're doing plenty well anyway so it doesn't really matter." While the love of the Vikings runs deep, the desire to hang on to money runs even deeper these days it seems.
While most people are against outright state funding of the project, which would mean either even bigger slashes to current programs or higher taxes, nobody wants to see the team leave. “This team is a huge part of our state,” Kyle said “They bring in revenue we otherwise wouldn’t get and they have entertainment value”. Wary of the new spending, people nevertheless see the Wilf’s point about the aging Metrodome and sympathize with their call for a new facility. Few bathrooms and snack stands along with tiny locker rooms and bad parking combine to make the Wilf’s argument for them. With one of the oldest and smallest stadiums in the league, people agree it’s time to move on. When asked if the Vikings deserve a new stadium, the answer was a resounding “yes”. After years of being considered second rate, the people long for Minnesota to be recognized. “A new stadium would keep all the revenue that booking the stadium would bring and it would make the Twin Cities a big league town which would attract employers and employees" The former Fed manager said. Jacob agreed with the assessment, “The newness factor, bringing in a lot of people, and it would just be awesome for the city itself; this is what a stadium would give to us.”
Nothing is certain yet. The Viking’s ownership and the state are still in gridlock over finance issues; and with 2011 just one short year away, time is quickly running out. The people call for a new stadium, but demand that someone else pay for it. New taxes are seemingly out of the question, with compromise proposals gaining little ground. However, one thing is certain. Within the next year, a decision will be made, and the consensus is hoping to see a wrecking ball outside the Metrodome sometime soon.
Kyle strutz, John Johnson, and Jacob Davis contributed to this article.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Answers to interview questions
Kyle
1)How do you think the stadium issue should be resolved?
" The metrodome is fine and the Vikings should stop their complaining"
2)Who should contribute the majority of the money for the project?
"The taxpayers since they always do that but I'd like to see the Wilfs or a fundraiser pay for alot of it"
3)Would you support an increase in taxes to pay for it?
"Depends how much of an increase but yes"
4)Would a better option be to just renovate the metrodome?
"If its cheaper then yes but the vikes need to accept it"
5) Can Minnesota afford to lose the Vikings? What do they bring to our state?
"No; they bring in alot of money and they're a huge part of our state."
John Johnson
1)Is helping the economy a viable reason for building a stadium?
"No; because the money could be spent on better things to help the economy like public works projects and infrastructure"
2)Do you think the state should give the money?
"They probably should; if giving some money keeps the team here then it's worth it"
3)How would a new stadium benefit Minnesota?
"It would keep all the revenue that booking the stadium would bring and it would make the Twin Cities a big league town which would attract Employers and employees"
4)After this year's playoff run, have the Vikings earned it?
"Yeah but I'm not sure if they've earned public funding"
5)Does the budget crisis automatically kill a new stadium?
"No because the casino proposal could finance it and the only negative would be taking away revenue from the indian casinos but they're doing plenty well anyway so it doesn't really matter."
Jacob
1) Should the dissapointments over the years affect whether or not the Vikings get a stadium?
"no; because you shouldn't base it off of that"
2)Who do you think should pay for it?
"Wilf. 100% Wilf"
3)Do you think the Vikings would lose the noise advantage if they moved to another stadium?
"Yeah because the dome is smaller and really enclosed"
4)Should the metrodome just be renovated?
"Yeah because we're in a recession and it would be cheap"
5)Why should a brand new stadium be built? What's the advantage of a new stadium?
"The newness factor, bring in alot of people, and it would just be awesome for the city itself"
1)How do you think the stadium issue should be resolved?
" The metrodome is fine and the Vikings should stop their complaining"
2)Who should contribute the majority of the money for the project?
"The taxpayers since they always do that but I'd like to see the Wilfs or a fundraiser pay for alot of it"
3)Would you support an increase in taxes to pay for it?
"Depends how much of an increase but yes"
4)Would a better option be to just renovate the metrodome?
"If its cheaper then yes but the vikes need to accept it"
5) Can Minnesota afford to lose the Vikings? What do they bring to our state?
"No; they bring in alot of money and they're a huge part of our state."
John Johnson
1)Is helping the economy a viable reason for building a stadium?
"No; because the money could be spent on better things to help the economy like public works projects and infrastructure"
2)Do you think the state should give the money?
"They probably should; if giving some money keeps the team here then it's worth it"
3)How would a new stadium benefit Minnesota?
"It would keep all the revenue that booking the stadium would bring and it would make the Twin Cities a big league town which would attract Employers and employees"
4)After this year's playoff run, have the Vikings earned it?
"Yeah but I'm not sure if they've earned public funding"
5)Does the budget crisis automatically kill a new stadium?
"No because the casino proposal could finance it and the only negative would be taking away revenue from the indian casinos but they're doing plenty well anyway so it doesn't really matter."
Jacob
1) Should the dissapointments over the years affect whether or not the Vikings get a stadium?
"no; because you shouldn't base it off of that"
2)Who do you think should pay for it?
"Wilf. 100% Wilf"
3)Do you think the Vikings would lose the noise advantage if they moved to another stadium?
"Yeah because the dome is smaller and really enclosed"
4)Should the metrodome just be renovated?
"Yeah because we're in a recession and it would be cheap"
5)Why should a brand new stadium be built? What's the advantage of a new stadium?
"The newness factor, bring in alot of people, and it would just be awesome for the city itself"
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Interview questions for 3 people
Kyle
1) How do you think the stadium issue should be resolved?
2) Who should contribute the majority of the money for the project?
3) Would you rather see an increase in taxes to help pay for it or see the team leave?
4)Would it be better to just renovate the metrodome or do you think they need a brand new facility?
5)Can Minnesota afford to lose the Vikings?
John Johnson
1) Is helping the economy a viable reason to build a new stadium? Why/why not?
2) Do you think the state should give the money?
3) How would a new stadium benefit Minnesota?
4) After this year's playoff run, have the Vikings earned it?
5) Is the budget crisis a good enough excuse?
Jacob
1) Should all the dissapointments over the years affect whether or not the Vikings get a stadium? why/why not?
2) Who do you think should pay for it?
3) Would The Vikings would lose the noise advantage if they moved to a new stadium?
4) Should the Metrodome just be renovated? why/why not?
5) Where should a stadium be built if it happens?
1) How do you think the stadium issue should be resolved?
2) Who should contribute the majority of the money for the project?
3) Would you rather see an increase in taxes to help pay for it or see the team leave?
4)Would it be better to just renovate the metrodome or do you think they need a brand new facility?
5)Can Minnesota afford to lose the Vikings?
John Johnson
1) Is helping the economy a viable reason to build a new stadium? Why/why not?
2) Do you think the state should give the money?
3) How would a new stadium benefit Minnesota?
4) After this year's playoff run, have the Vikings earned it?
5) Is the budget crisis a good enough excuse?
Jacob
1) Should all the dissapointments over the years affect whether or not the Vikings get a stadium? why/why not?
2) Who do you think should pay for it?
3) Would The Vikings would lose the noise advantage if they moved to a new stadium?
4) Should the Metrodome just be renovated? why/why not?
5) Where should a stadium be built if it happens?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Hard News Story
Topic: New Vikings Stadium
Angle: Minnesotans have divided opinions on how to pay for it
Angle: Minnesotans have divided opinions on how to pay for it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
