Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:  
On Wikipedia, the fact that Darrow dodged his deal with Bryan is downplayed, and his act of pleading guilty is cunningly worded. It says "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial]
 
On Wikipedia, the fact that Darrow dodged his deal with Bryan is downplayed, and his act of pleading guilty is cunningly worded. It says "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial]
   −
4.
+
4. This comes down to deciding what the greater good is, and to whom you owe more allegience, your country or the human race? Obviously, if the war would end faster by our country joining it, it would be better for the world for us to get our hands dirty. But is it worth putting our own nation in harms way? Never mind that in many cases the war comes to our nation whether we go to the war or not. Is our duty first to help as many people on earth as we can, or is it to our own country first?
   −
5.
+
I feel our devotion belongs to our country, America, first -- at least, if the playing field is level, if their war is as bad as ours. But in this case, that of World War I, the atrocities of the enemy were so vile that the act of going to war was more righteous than not going to war. If our strength had been less than theirs, I would not be so sure as to whether it was worth it to go. The idea is, first to avoid war until the benefit to the world strongly outweighs the benefit to ourselves. And second, to find the scenerio with the least bloodshed once we've gone to war. With these principles, I feel is easier to determine when to go to war, which, in 1917, was a good decision. 
 +
 
 +
5. He was rough, smart, and sure of himself.
    
6.
 
6.
    
7.
 
7.
Block, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
1,130

edits

Navigation menu