The Great Debate of Rwanda

The my group, the Rwandan Armed Forces, was one of the most offensive parties and we got the blame on others. Our defence on genocide was always'" Interhamwe". I launched a cruel war on the United Nations criticizing that the U.N. could not live up to its functions by stopping genocide on Earth. We did not attack France because they helped us supply for the military. I did not attack Belgium because everyone else focused on giving Belgium the blame. Many times as I attacked the Red Cross, or the U.N., I attacked their leadership for not encouraging interference, and his cool attitude and detachment on the subject. The Red Cross was attacked because they kept themselves out of it and I felt that they as an organization for the global general health had a responsibility in ther. I did not at all attack the United States because I thought that the U.S. did not have any obligation to go into my country. I attacked RPF and Paul Kagame for provoking the war and killing everybody. He represents a minority group anyway. Hutus are five times greater population and if the majority rule, it would secure peace. So over all this, it was interesting to take the side of this using the other groups point of view and helps you understand each role better.





After the Rwandan debate, I had to side against what I really felt about because I had to side on the dark side. I do not believe that the Rwandan Armed Forces was right or not necessarily anyone, but I attacked other groups to look the best, and when someone blamed us on something we actually did, we just told them we did not have anything to do with genocide, it was all their fault. It looked as if the fault came from Belgium, the United Nations and Romeo, Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front and especially the Interhamwe. I thought that us, The Rwandan Armed Forces was just as guilty as RPF and Paul Kagame. I guess I must be the best debater for repelling all attack on us and destroying others. You might say I would be a good politician. I think you are right. This layout is a great organizational way to learn the material better, with a little more fun.

What Emerson Forgot

Emerson 's argument in The "American Scholar" is not completely true in a form that defines the strength of individuals of a society.



The problem in the world today is people, or society.Each person inside of themselves has an individual. The individual is not a public display, it keeps things holy inside of them, it protects their soul. When that individual has been given up for a public sacrifice, the person dies and becomes a machine. Each society has demanded the sacrifice of man's soul- includes loves dreams talents, to be distributed amongst all for the good of others. When people give up everything they love for the good of others, they kill, murder, sacrifice, suicide, whatever you want to call it. The thinking man knows himself and not anyone else. The strongest individuals will survive the test of a society to live together, to mutually exchange the benefits of other individuals in the world.



The individual explores. I am myself, the individual,(joke). Referring to King Louis XIV of France"I am myself, the state". Many of the things individuals can explore include many subjects of our public school system. As and individual, my interest involves hisory and science. I have always been interested in science and history through my life, but more recently in the past three years have learned about every possible empire and ruler that ever existed! Physics have always interested me, because I want to become an engineer one day. Engineering is something Emerson loves because it is creative, and I express me as an individual by keeping up with my history. History helps me have a better understanding of the world. Not everyone is like the individual though, and that is what is wrong with the world. If everyone thought for themselves, we would be much more advanced and have a crimeless world.