Comments for English and Technology Class

Comment on 1st article by Akeem Parkinson

Akeem Parkinson — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:28:09 +0000

This article is stating the plans Bill Clinton, has to maintain peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Clinton had put forward something called the “Clinton Plan” this plan called for Israel to give up 95 percent of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. So that Palestinian refugees to be able to return to Palestinian areas but not to Israel. This plan was later rejected by Yasir Arafat.
If the Bush-Rice team had kept with the Clinton Plan, today it will be more peaceful than it is right now. He didn’t want anything supported by Bill Clinton, stating “A.B.C” (anything but clinton).

The authors opinion in this article, clearly states that he opposes , Bush-Rice team for throwing the Clinton plan “under the bus”. The author is really upset, that Bush-Rice team didn’t go through with this plan because he states his opinon, ”
Had the Bush-Rice team stuck with the Clinton plan, today, at a minimum, it
would have been locked in as the only acceptable formula for peace, ” In that quote you can tell he opposed him, he gave a clear understandment.

Comment on 2nd Article by Akesha Coy

Akesha Coy — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:51:02 +0000

This article states the Al Qaeda is recieving new generations of leaders that may have the thought of forming new attacks. Their new generation seems to have more experience in wars and might be a better advantage to the Mesopatamian land. Bin laden has new weapons and new technology and also new fighters. The United States is trying to find out more information because they need to kno if they will attack and how they will attack back.

I agree with the authors opinion because it states that the Al Qaeda’s new generation leaders want to attack. Why else would they need advanced leaders who has much knowledge and experiance with wars and fighting? They studied our government and the way we operate and can recieve all the information they need to take us down. SO the US needs to be prepared for anything and expect the unexpected.

Comment on 1st article by Dana R

Dana R — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:02:10 +0000

The article “many plans -no news” by Thomas Friedman talks about the Israelis, the Palestinians and how well they worked with one another under the Clinton plan, under this Clinton plan the Israelis gives up 95% of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem and for Palestinian refuguees to be able to return to Palestinian areas but not to Israel but when Bush became President he believed the Clinton plan was a dead letter because he felt Arafat would not accept it anyway.Since Bush has been President four times more Israelis and Palestinians died fighting each other.
The author’s opinion is present in this article. Thomas Friedman believes the Clinton plan is a smart idea that creates peace and actually works. He feels Bush should have continued the plan and Friedman proves this in his article with facts, and comments from other people such as Dennis Ross, Clinton ’s top negotiator but i think president Bush should have at least tried the Clinton plan because it will help him in his time as a president he could have used this plan as a guideline.

Comment on 1st article by Yana Berezina

Yana Berezina — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:01:02 +0000

The article, “Many Plans – No News”, by Thomas Friedman talks about how the Bush administration made a big mistake by being stubborn and neglecting to follow Bill Clinton’s plan to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Yes, it is unsure if the “Clinton Plan” would actually work, but the Bush administration didn’t take action, and the death toll of Israelis and Palestinians from fighting each other during the Bush years of 2001-2005 was four times more than the death toll during Clinton’s presidency.

The author’s opinion is present all throughout this article. The author is strongly against Bush’s administration’s actions on dealing with peace in the Middle East. An example of how the author portrays his opinion would be: “We could be and should be doing better.” This clearly shows the reader how the author’s opinion on this topic.

Comment on 1st article by John Wu

John Wu — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:53:06 +0000

This article is about former president Clinton. It discusses the plan Clinton thought of to stop warefare between the Palestinians and Israelis. Clinton planned on creating peace between these two nations but it did not suceed. So when Bush came into power, he decided to not stick with Clinton plan and made his on. The fact is when Bush became president, the death between these two nations increased.

I disagree with the author because since Bush is the president, he has the right to decide what to do with his country. Being a president isn’t as easy as we all think it is, it not something like only saying yes and no. Also no one could of guaranteed that Clinton’s plan would of work anyway, If Bush plan didnt work doesnt make Clinton’s will.

Comment on 2nd Article by Yana Berezina

Yana Berezina — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:00:18 +0000

The article, “Qaeda is Seen as Restoring Leadership”, is about the newly forming Al Qaeda leaders which may or may not be of relation to Osama Bin Laden. It is unsure if these leaders are connected or each hold their own share of orders and own controlled regime. The article states that ever since the attack of 9-11, Al Qaeda hasn’t showed much agreggesion or action but inside is working and planning on future attacks. All in all, America isn’t the only country that should be aware of future Al Qaeda attacks. because the newly emerging leaders can surprisingly strike any day now.

I don’t think it is possible to say that the author expresses his opinion in this article, because he quotes what other officials and leaders say. He doesn’t really express his say on this topic. An example would be:
“To say that Al Qaeda was out of business simply because they have not attacked in the U.S. is whistling past the graveyard,” said Michael Scheuer, a former head of the bin Laden tracking unit at the C.I.A. This expresses Michael Scheuer’s opinion but not the author’s. The author is only informing the reader with factual information.

Comment on 2nd Article by Rocio Hernandez

Rocio Hernandez — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:50:47 +0000

This article “Qaeda is Seen as Restoring Leadership” is about how Al Queda is getting and gathering a new crew of troops. The troops are becoming more strong and are being well trained. They are smarter and can fight back to anybody that starts to fight with them. Now with the new technology and forces they have better chances of winning.
I agree with the author because they are now much better. They have better technology and are stronger in many ways. America is slowly becoming weaker and we might not see it but they can attack at any time or point. If we are not ready for this we may not be able to stand up in future unknown attacks. America needs to get focused and get ready for whatever happens.

Comment on 1st article by Rocio Hernandez

Rocio Hernandez — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:37:56 +0000

This article is about Clinton and Bush. It discusses the plan of Clinton and how he was going to stop the warefare between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He waanted peace there but when Bush became president in 2000 this did not happen. Bush had his own plan but it didnt work out for him. It was the opposite of what Clinton wnted it to be. There were more deaths between the Israeli’s and Palenstanians from 2001-2005 than when Clinton was president and was making the plan. Bush made matters worse.

I disagree with the author because anything could have happened either way. There was a chance that Clinton’s plan could have worked but would it have given the rigt amount of results. Bush’s plan didnt work out as planned but he is the president, so it was his choose to do whatever he felt was best. Either way Bush’s ideas and plans wil affect the United States and we cant really do anything about it.

Comment on 2nd Article by Kimbery Butler

Kimbery Butler — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:24:40 +0000

Im not sure what this article is discussing exactly. I think the article “Many Plans, No News ” is camparing the outcomes of what could of been and what is with president’s disicions and way on handling situations. I think she is talking about this because the author keeps mentioning things that president clinton did or was going to do. Then the author mentions something the president bush did or was going to do. Bush’s attempts at delaing with situations in America has only seemed to make things worst because as the article states “But by not endorsing the Clinton parameters, we are back with plans that are much worse.”

In my eyes that means Bush will do anything to solve a problem as long as it does not resort to using a peace treaty. I think the opinion the author is trying to get across is that Clinton makes a better president. If that so i think the authors opinion is present in the article. The Author Gives detail about Clinton that can increase his image but gives information about Bush that makes you not want to vote for him again. Such as, is four times more Israelis and Palestinians died fighting each other during the “realistic,” “pro-Israel,” sideline-sitting Bush years of 2001 to 2005 than in the “naïve” (in this case they were talking about clinton) decade of intense U.S. peacemaking, dominated by President Clinton — from Madrid to Oslo, 1991 to 2000.

Comment on 2nd Article by Iman P.

Iman P. — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:19:44 +0000

This article talks about how America is working to uncover terrorist acts. It talks about what people cause the most concern and where they can be found. It explains how some attackers that helped on September 11th were trained by Americans. Some people were taught and given weapons from America. Al Qaeda is still looking for leadership that Counterterrorism officials are working to stop as well as any future plans of attacks from Al Qaeda.

I do not think the author’s opinion is present in this article because it tells about how Al Qaeda is still planning attacks. Also it talks about how they are working to diminish them. The author never states how he feels about it and if he believes it is true or not.