Need peer responses by 11:30pm est.
Please see attachment.
Peer Responses Week 7
ENG 102 (MLA FORMAT)
Response #1 (DEWON): In the poem “You Can Have It,” Philip Levine creates a character to express a sorrowful moment that alludes to a deeper realization and acceptance of fate. The narrator reveals an intense feeling of regret for all the time lost over the many years that he and his brother were trapped in an endless cycle of labor. His situation connects back to the title to emphasize how drained and hopeless he feels. The tone of this story is very gloomy and depleted. Each sentence goes into detail that provides imagery for what these brothers have gone through and are doomed to continue going through. It’s clear that Levines’ focus was on conveying the exact extent of how the working class are held captive to their responsibilities with no time leftover to live, and how before they know it there isn’t even any time left anyways. Bringing the severity of this to life is important because it’s an issue in real life and many don’t even realize how their time is running away from them, and unfortunately, most can’t do anything about it regardless. It’s an unfortunate position for so many people to be in.
Levine, Philip. “You Can Have It.”
Poetry Foundation.
Response #2 (LAMAR): Title: Manhunt or Ode to First Kisses
Summary: “Manhunt or Ode to First Kisses” by Elizabeth Acevedo is a poem that juxtaposes the innocence of childhood games, specifically the game of manhunt, with darker themes of assault and the weight of memories. The poem reflects on the anticipation, excitement, and vulnerability experienced during these childhood games, ultimately leading to a deeper reflection on the complexities of honesty and the duality of human experiences.
Two specific elements of the poem that stood out are the contrast between the childhood game and the darker realities it hints at, and the sensory imagery that evokes a vivid sense of nostalgia. The poem initially sets the stage with nostalgic imagery of children playing manhunt, creating a sense of innocence and joy. However, as the poem progresses, it hints at the darker undertones associated with the game, alluding to the assault and the weight of memories. This contrast between the lightheartedness of the game and the underlying darkness adds depth and complexity to the poem. Additionally, the sensory imagery, such as “baby hairs stuck to our necks” and the mention of the July air, creates a vivid sense of nostalgia and transports the reader back to the moment of childhood play.
This poem resonated with me personally because it captures the complexity of human experiences and the duality of innocence and darkness that can coexist. It reminded me of my childhood games and the anticipation and vulnerability that accompanied them. The poem’s exploration of honesty and the layers of meaning behind seemingly simple experiences resonated with me as it reminded me of the importance of acknowledging and embracing the complexities of our memories and experiences. It serves as a reminder to approach life with honesty and to recognize that there is often more than one draft or perspective to consider.
Citation work:
Acevedo, Elizabeth. “Manhunt or Ode to First Kisses by Elizabeth Acevedo.”
Poetry Foundation, Poetry Foundation,
www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/155523/manhunt-or-ode-to-first-kisses. Accessed 8 May 2024.
HSE-480(APA FORMAT)
Response #1 (HUDSON): #1. Comment on the video
I agree with Mr. Gaetz in his statement that having service members on that pier is essentially the same thing as having boots on the ground in Gaza. When there is a possibility, and honestly with the climate in the area a likelihood of United States troops taking fire from an enemy there is a huge threat that presents itself. Once the fire is returned that will basically be the start of another war within the area. It also begs the question if it is still a possibility to take on fire from the enemy why build a 320-million-dollar pear when there are many cheaper options and possibilities. I do not think that this policy makes sense for America to get involved again in the Middle east. I am not throwing away the idea of possibly providing aid and assistance, but like mentioned before having troops on the pier is essentially moving troops on the ground within Gaza.
#2.
To start, the Nixon Doctrine placed primary focus and reliance on security cooperation within the Persian Gulf. The cooperation with regional states came from the goal of wanting to protect United States interests around the world. The strategy that became known as the Twin Pillar Policy was when it was decided to rely heavily on the two key states of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The strategy was to use these “twin pillars” as a way to better maintain stability as well as better contain and push out Soviet influence that was within the area. You can definitely see the strategy changing as the landscape of the Middle East changed. With so many things changing from shifting alliances to different strategic goals within the area, the strategy definitely adapted, and you can see a change in partners and approaches within the Middle East. While there is a shift in things such as partners and methods the overall idea of relying on important allies within the region did not change as that gives a much better foothold within the area.
The decision for the United States to go to war following the attacks on 9/11 is a very complex and controversial topic. I believe that the United States did the right thing in going to war. To start, with such a devastating attack and show of force by the terrorists, there needed to be a very strong and deliberate retaliation to show not only the specific organization, but the whole world not to mess with the United States. There are also other factors that go into play such as the rumor of weapons of mass destruction that caused the need to have a strong retaliation and influence within the area. Although there are many other factors that also need to be considered such as the conspiracy theories, lack of evidence from the attacks, and the great costs of a war, I believe that the United States retaliation was needed.
Reference:
Iraq’s Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction, (October, 2002), www.odni.gov/files/documents/Iraq_NIE_Excerpts_2003.pdf.
Lesch, D. W. (2018).
The Middle East and the United States (6th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Response #2 (PAUL): So now we are building a $320 million dollar pier to deliver aid to Gaza which attacked Israel our only true ally in the region. Gaza is not a functioning country as we are accustomed. It is run by a terrorist organization Hamas, which takes all of the aid meant for the people and uses it for attacks against its enemy. The aid delivered to the pier will be taken by the terrorists and the decent people in Gaza are left to suffer. This is one reason our policies do not work, and we end up being hated. However, our politicians and defense contractors continue to benefit financially so the cycle continues. Paul
Response #3 (KERYN): #1. The decision for US troops to be involved in Gaza would be highly controversial and would depend on various factors such as the nature of the conflict, US national interests, and the potential risks and benefits. Commenting on the video specifically would require more context, but generally, America’s involvement in the Middle East has been a contentious issue due to the region’s complex political dynamics and historical tensions. Some argue that intervention can help stabilize the region and promote US interests, while others believe it can exacerbate conflicts and lead to unintended consequences. Ultimately, whether this policy makes sense for America would depend on a careful assessment of the situation and its potential implications.
#2. The Twin Pillar Policy was a Cold War-era strategy pursued by the United States to maintain stability in the Middle East by supporting two key regional allies, Iran and Saudi Arabia. However, as the landscape in the Middle East changed, with the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the policy became increasingly difficult to sustain. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War in 1990-91 further reshaped US policy in the region, leading to a greater focus on containing Iraq’s aggression.
Regarding the Iraq War following the 9/11 terror attacks, the decision to go to war with Iraq was highly controversial and remains a subject of debate. Proponents argued that Iraq posed a significant threat due to its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism, making military action necessary for national security. However, critics argue that the evidence for Iraq’s weapons program was flawed and that the invasion destabilized the region, leading to prolonged conflict and contributing to the rise of extremism. Hindsight suggests that the decision to go to war with Iraq was highly contentious and had far-reaching consequences, underscoring the complexity of foreign policy decisions in the Middle East.
