One thing that I struck me as interesting is an article I stumbled upon about Wu'er Kaixi, one of the student leaders in 1989. Since the protests have been laid to rest more than 20 years ago, Wu'er has been exiled and not allowed to return to Beijing. This is where he grew up, where he attended University and where is family lives. He can only know the change his former country is going through through the news, never on a personal level. However, one thing has not changed and that is the fact that he like many others he is still and can not go home. As the world goes through its financial crisis, China has been looked upon as a kind of stimulating motor to help boost the economy, yet they still imprison and exile those with dissenting views. He speaks about the great change his country has gained, and for that he is very glad to see. The protests he says emerged largely because of the death of a politician who was more sympathetic than most, something the Chinese was desperate to see. But he says it became a wider call for change when workers' unions and common people started to join. He is happy about the change that has come to China, he just simply wishes there were more that had been achieved. I think this just goes to show how far but also little little the Chinese government has come. Their willing to bend in very minor aspects of their leadership, yet not willing to let Chinese citizens come home for speaking their minds in a fight that is meant for the good of their people.
|This picture shows student demonstrators coming face to face with soldiers in the midsnt of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. It shows a compelling view of the divide China is facing.|
|This picture shows the "umbrella revolution", protecting themselves from soldiers and their use of tear gas and pepper spray in attempts to disperse protestors.|
The current war battle the U.S has come to find itself worrisome of is the battle against ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). This is a noteworthy news topic because although ISIS is terrorizing in different countries, its not to say they couldn't spread their terror in the homeland. It also greatly impacts the lives of U.S citizens because they have executed U.S prisoners with footage at hand, making it difficult for anyone to not be fearful. Their main goal is to create an Islamic state across Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria. As I did my research on this topic, I used CNN and The New York Times. Both news sources have headlines about how U.S airstrikes against ISIS are not working, and that something else needs to be put in action.
CNN's headline is "McKeon: Our ISIS Strategy Is Not Working", which goes on to explain from the viewpoint of Buck McKeon, why U.S airstrikes are not getting the job done. He explains that since the two moth air strikes have been taking place, little progress has been shown and that ISIS only continues to get stronger on a day by day basis. He explains that Kobani, which is part of the Turkey border and who is also a member of NATO, is about to fall and that this can draw into a much bigger war. "The longer we wait the harder its going to get". He is saying that troops are very necessary on the ground to fight against the terrorist group. He puts himself in the Commander and Chief's shoes and suggests that he listen to his military advisors and thinks its time that he follow their advice.The New York Times headline is "Weeks of U.S Strikes Fail to Dislodge ISIS in Iraq". The article states that the airstrikes seemed to have stopped the Islamic state from going forth into Baghdad, yet they are still dealing devastating blows to the Iraq Army. The article states that the foundation of the Obama administrations plan to defeat ISIS is the installation of a new Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi. The Islamic Sates spokesman issued a statement dispensing advice to fellow jihadis "Rig the roads with explosives for them. Attack their bases. Raid their homes. Cut off their heads,” the statement told Egyptian militants attacking the police and soldiers. “Turn their worldly life into fear and fire.”
As I concluded my research, I found that the article from CNN was more concerned with presenting the facts of why we need boots on the ground and what the causes would be if we didn't. The article in The New York Times was more concerned with the overall facts of what who is involved and the specific consequences from the Islamic State themselves. This article I thought put more emotion into it, explaining more about the executions and mass murders, as opposed to CNN who strictly stuck with the best possible solutions for stopping ISIS. Both sources however had the same objective, that U.S military airstrikes were not working and that combat boots on the ground is what will actually aid in defeating the Islamic terrorist group. Both also show there opinions of imminent change and the struggles we face if something is not done soon.