Evaluation of Iraq war through group think Essay Example for Free

Evaluation of Iraq war through group think Essay The War on Iraq was decided by a small group of people that was headed by the President and comprised of the Vice-President, Defense Secretary, CIA Director and other senior administrative officials. The decision to go to war was a decision of a small think-tank rather than of an individual or a larger group of people. The decision of the think-tank pushing the case for the Iraq War seems to be an apt example of confirmation bias. This confirmation bias during the events leading to the Iraq War has led to a widening rift between policy makers and the intelligence community. It is widely believed that the war think-tank defied the pointers presented by the official intelligence. Instead, the intelligence available in a raw form was misused to publicly justify the war on Iraq and build a positive public perception that would endorse the war. As the Washington Post reports the discussion on the war; The case was thin, summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. However, the think-tank was convinced about going for a war with Iraq and it used the available intelligence to confirm its beliefs. Cognitive diversity was missing in the think-tank that drew up the plan for the Iraq War. All members involved in the decision process had same political leanings, were to a large extent a culturally homogenous group and formed a small team that worked closely with each other on various policy making issues. The team did not comprise of various political voices even though the decision to go to war impacted the entire country. It did also not take advice and heed to objections of World bodies like the United Nations when some of the member countries objected to the unilateral action of the United States and its ally Britain to go to war. The team did not invite any new members to its coterie of decision makers to infuse fresh or alternative thinking in its decision making process. As Senator Barbara Boxer said, â€Å"Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity†. The intelligence community was roped in only to substantiate claims made by the think-tank on the reason to go to war. The group behaved with a preset agenda ignoring the alternatives at hand and made biased decisions. The Iraq War is also an example of group comparison where the decisions of the individual members could have been different from the decisions of the group that they were part of. The study of group polarization began with an unpublished 1961 Master’s thesis by MIT student James Stoner, who observed the so-called risky shift, meaning that a group’s decisions are riskier than the average of the individual decisions of members before the group met. After the wide public criticism of the U. S. handling of the war, two prominent members of the Iraq think-tank put in their papers. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell resigned after almost 4 years of at the helm of affairs. He was seen as less supportive of the war even though he was the public face on international forums to drum up support amongst its traditional allies. Whereas Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld who took over the course of foreign policy after Powell’s exit was seen as a hardliner. It seems that the hardliners would have grown even more resolute in their decision to go to war after several rounds of deliberations that the think-tank might have had. They would have presented intelligence information and other reasons to hard sell their belief thereby subduing the reluctant supporters of the war.

George Rogers Clark Essay -- American History Revolutionary War Essays

George Rogers Clark Who was George Rogers Clark? This is probably a question most people in America couldn't answer. The reason is very simple, George Rogers Clark was a hero in an age of heroism. He simply could not compare with the legends of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other Revolutionary War heroes. Clark nevertheless is very important, especially to the people of Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana who became apart of the United States of America because of his great leadership and bravery in military campaigns at Kaskaskia, Illinois and Vincennes, Indiana during the Revolutionary War. George Rogers Clark was born in Albermale County, Virginia on November 19, 1752 to John and Ann Rogers Clark. The Clark family consisted of six boys and four girls living on a four hundred acre plantation. George Rogers Clark was not even the most famous person in his family, his younger brother William later came to fame with his good friend Merriwether Lewis for exploring Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. The Clark family was very well to do and influential, which enabled them to send young George to very good school, and have him tutored by some of the great minds in the region, like George Mason. George Rogers Clark had three friendships as a child that forever changed and shaped his future as a leader and revolutionary war hero. Thomas Jefferson's father owned a nearby plantation, though there was a nine year age difference between Thomas Jefferson and George Rogers Clark, the two enjoyed a life long friendship. He was also a classmate of James Madison, who would later be a strong supporter of George Rogers Clark and his military campaigns. Last, George Mason, a future Revolutionary war statesman and me... ...ow a great man the respect he deserved. When we learn about Revolutionary war history in school we learn about George Washington, Patrick Henry, and even Nathan Hale. But never is a word spoken about the accomplishments of George Rogers Clark and his small band of soldiers who assisted to the victory in east with their victories at Kaskaskia and Vincennes. Their has not been a serious work written on George Rogers Clark in nearly fifty year, and in schooling he is completely neglected. All of this is wrong, Clark was very important to the Revolutionary War victory and even more vital to opening the gateway to the west. For this reason his legacy and story should not die but instead be passed down to future generations along with the legends of Washington, Henry, Jefferson and all other Revolutionary War hero's without whom we may not be where we are today.

Cloning an Instinct Species in “Jurassic Park”

Roger Lee Propes PHI-240 Katherine Allison, Professor April 6, 2012 Cloning an Instinct Species in â€Å"Jurassic Park† When we hear about cloning in the media, they are usually referring to reproductive cloning, human cloning in particular, and it’s scientific and ethical implications. In Jurassic Park, John Hammand, who is a rich entrepreneur, hires a group of scientists to clone dinosaurs from the Jurassic Period. The ethical dilemma presented in Jurassic Park is whether we should use our knowledge of cloning to revive an extinct species that ceased to exist through natural processes.I believe John Hammand used ethical relativism (Van Camp, Olen, and Barry page 4) because he coordinated this project based on moral truths that were true to him. However, several of the experts he hired to sponsor the park disagreed with the ethical judgments he made while developing the park. I will briefly describe two types of cloning that were combined to successfully engineer the d inosaurs in the movie, and give an example of cloning that has been successful. Then I will give reasons why it is unethical to resurrect species that became instinct through natural processes.The words recombinant DNA technology, DNA cloning, molecular cloning, and gene cloning all refer to the same process: the transfer of a DNA fragment or interest from one organism to a self-replicating genetic element such as a bacterial plasmid. The DNA of interest can then be developed in a foreign host cell. This technology has been around since the 1970’s, and it has become a common practice in molecular biology labs today. â€Å"In 1977 scientists at the Asilomar Conference proposed sweeping regulation on so-called recombinant DNA, technologies which recombine DNA from different species in the test tube† (biology. enyon. edu). Their concerns were by combining DNA of different species disastrous monsters would result. Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an an imal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. The best and most publicized example of this is the sheep named Dolly. She was the first mammal to be cloned from adult DNA. â€Å"Ian Wilmut, the scientist whose team at Scotland’s Roslin Institute cloned Dolly who was born July 5, 1996, and euthanized in 2003 because of lung disease† (usatoday. om). This successful clone was produced 3 years after the film was produced. â€Å"Dolly, or any other animal created using nuclear transfer technology, is not truly an identical clone of the donor animal. Only the clone’s chromosomal or nuclear DNA is the same as the donor, some of the clone’s genetic materials come from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the enucleated egg† (ornl. gov). In the film, the dinosaurs weren’t exact replicas and had mutations caused by the frog DNA that was used.In the film, they discovered dinosaur DNA trapped in the amber of a tre e and extracted the DNA. They DNA sequence was not complete so they decided to combine frog DNA in an attempt to complete the sequence. The scientists also manipulated the sequence to ensure that all of the cloned specimens would be female thinking it would be the more docile than the male. Even though females tend to have less strength than their male counterparts, they are usually the one left to tend for the offspring. Dr. Malcolm made the statement that, â€Å"nature always finds a way†.There are many species that have proven that reproduction is a possibility in a single sex environment. Some species, such as anemone fishes, are born all male and when they mature change sex and become female. â€Å"This is very strange life histories in species whose individuals may change sex at some time in their life. They may change from being males to females, protandry, or females to males, protogyny. † (marinebiology. org) Dr. Alan Grant and the children find a nest of eggs that has hatched while they were evading the T-Rex, proving nature found a way.Human beings, in general, are very naive when it comes to the power they actually hold over our world and nature. If we are to consider resurrection instinct species, we should also consider whether they became instinct through natural causes or the human intervention. Also, we should make sure we consider all of the possible mutations that may occur due to the genetic makeup of the DNA used to complete the sequence. Those which became instinct because of being destroy by humans may still be able to survive in the world as it is today.In addition, we should enter the cloning process with the knowledge that nature will eventually find a way and begin to sustain without future interference of human beings. Those which became instinct through natural causes shouldn’t be revived because the world isn’t suitable for their survival, and reviving these species could cause catastrophic changes in t he environment, which is evident in the movie â€Å"Jurassic Park†. Works Cited Buchheim, Jason. A Quick Course in Ichthyology. n. d. . Department, Biology.KAP Recombinant DNA Technology. n. d. . Energy, US Department of. Human Genome Project Information. 11 May 2009. 15 03 2012 . Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, and Vincent Barry. Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings. Ed. Ian Lague. Tenth Edition. Boston: Clark Baxter, 2011. Jurassic Park. By Michael Crichton. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Perf. Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum Sam Neil. 1993. Wise, Elizabeth. USA Today. 4 July 2006. 15 March 2012 .

12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1188 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2019/04/04 Category Art Essay Level High school Topics: 12 Angry Men Essay Film Analysis Essay Did you like this example? The film 12 Angry Men written by Reginald Rose depicts different human personalities attempting to decide the fate of a young man who is accused of killing his father. The jury must determine a verdict of not guilty or guilty, sending a young man to be executed for the crime of murder. However, eleven out of the twelve Jurors have it all figured out, Guilty they agree due to reasons that are illogical. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose" essay for you Create order However, Juror 8, the only Juror out of the twelve that took it upon himself to begin a discussion that would soon lead his fellow jury members to re-evaluate their positions by using personal prejudices, experience, evidence, swaying the Jurors to the moral decision. Indeed, personal prejudices played a major role in Juror 10s decision making regarding the defendant. He remarks, Its tough to figure, isnt it? A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that. Well, its the element. They let the kids run wild. Maybe it serves em right. At first, the statement could be heard as a slip of the tongue or even petty judgment. Its not entirely clear what Juror #10 means when he says the element. However, its as if he believes all individuals who are not a part of the white race have natural instincts to kill and run wild. Later, Juror #10 even states none of the jury members should believe the defendant because he is not apart of the white race, youre not going to tell us that were supposed to believe him knowing what he is? Ive lived among em all my life. You cant believe a word they say. You know that.Juror #8 immediately traps Juror #10 by asking, How come you believed the non-white witness? Shes one of them too, isnt she?, leaving Juror #10 at a loss for words. As the film continues, the more everyone began to realize how ignorant and cowardly Juror #10 truly is, believing if he keeps spouting his racist rants with aggression he will eventually get everyone to side with him. After a period of racist rants and shouting, Juror #10 made the last call for attention, Well, dont you know about them? Theres a Theres a danger here. These people are dangerous. Theyre wild. Listen to me. Listen to me. Nevertheless, his attempts failed, everyone was so sick of his racist rants to keep listening to his prejudice nonsense anymore. After a short silence, he gave up a set in the corner of the jury room, hanging his head in shame and disappointment. While he sitting in the corner Juror #10 was able to push his prejudice ways aside and actually listen to the conversation. Shockingly, after a short period of sitting quietly Juror #10 decided to change his vote that was made out of prejudice to not guilty due to invalid evidence pertaining to a witn ess ability to see clearly which was supported by Juror #6 who was able to confirm that it was impossible to see the boy clearly through a passing El train with poor vision. Juror #10 is not alone with his bias opinions. Even Juror 3 has a couple of prejudices remarks, however his remarks where shallow, there was more under his angry facade there was a pain due to experience. Indeed Juror #3 displayed the most aggression toward the defendant and many would have been seen these acts of aggression as personal. Juror #3 can be defined as a guy whos stern in his opinions, not used to having people disagree with him. Juror #3 also hates standing alone as it was displayed in the film I dont care about standing alone, its my right!. However, as he took a look around the room panicked with the fact that no one is on his side, leaving him to fend without the help of those who once sided with him. All the evidence was proven fallacious and still, his choice is to remain guilty. Due to Juror #3 lacking sympathy, he becomes the main antagonist in this film. He is even the last one to vote not guilty, even after all the evidence was deemed insufficient. Unlike many of the Jurors, Juror #3 disregarded all the evidence and disliked the fact the court took so long on the case, Six days, they should have finished in two. Talk, talk, talk, did you ever hear so much talk ab out nothing?. In his mind, it was clear to him that the defendant was guilty even without the evidence. Juror #3 resents the fact that the trial dedicated so much time making their arguments in the defense of the defendant. Throughout the film Juror #3 anger would get the best of him, when any conversation regarding the relationship between the boy and his father would spark up, Well Eighteen is old enough. He stabbed his own father six inches into the chest. They proved it a dozen different ways in court, a dozen ways. Do you want me to list them?. Juror #3 clearly expresses how much he dislikes the idea of a kid disobeying and killing his own father. In fact, I believe Juror #3 has a guilty conscience, which is due to the relationship he has with his son, and maybe he thought that his son would have tried to kill him if it meant stopping the abuse inflicted by his father, which is what lead to Juror #3 being the last to change his vote. Juror #3 turned down every piece of evidence as it was prov en invalid. Firstly, Juror #3 becomes an example to his biggest argument by stating Ill kill em! Ill kill em!, proving the point of Juror #8 that not everyone who says they are going to kill someone is actually going to kill someone. However, Juror #3 still failed to corporate, running headfirst into his personal prejudices. It is to a point in the film where Juror #3 no longer cares about rather or not the evidence is real or fake, being the last to change his vote was clear Juror #3 had a real personal issue with the case, standing his ground. As the film reaches its end, we began to understand all the reasons behind Juror #3s actions and why he felt so strongly about his distaste with the defendant. It is not until Juror #3 starts talking about his own son that the true reasons for his bias against the defendant become understandable. I told him, my son, right out, Im gonna make a man out of you or Im gonna bust you up into little pieces trying. When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. Hes big, you know. I havent seen him in three years. Rotten kid!. Due to the fact, he abused his kid to make a man out of him is probably why he related so well to the case. In his eyes, he was the defendant father and only wanted to make sure his son was able to defend himself against harm. However, it backfired he became the attacker his son needed saving from, but before he noticed his son was already gone. I believe Juror #3 felt a sense of guilt toward the defendant because of how he treated his own son leading up to his disappearance.