1.

How do you perceive the idea of claim 6 that if global War on Terror turns out to be
an intense engagement, it would become actually more important over time? Recall
the 9/11 tragedy, the Gulf War between Iraq and Kuwait. The civil disturbances in
Syria, Yemen, and Libya. If these will continue, would you agree on the premise?

In my opinion, war is never been a good option in solving problems such as

terrorism. In claim six, says that globalization requires war on terror I am against war
on terror because war on terrorism raises short and long term problems. The war on
terrorism gives governments a go sign to use violent means to suppress cross border
and domestic challenges. By using weapons to give security to fight against terrorist
results to loss of life of civilians, international terrorism is a crime and a matter of law
enforcement, not military operations. A country seeking extradition of a criminal must
produce evidence. The war on terrorism I argue that it should be understood in terms
of long-term objectives of the United States and involves underlying contradictions.
Terrorism is a particular tactic of political violence. Wars are conducted between
states. Declaring a war on terror is like declaring war on serial murderers. Such
language elevates the terrorists to the level of warriors in a battle. The terrorists are
criminals, not warriors, and should be treated accordingly. War on terrorism creates
enemies and promotes violence rather than mitigating acts of terror and
strengthening security. Governments should address terrorism through international
cooperation, using international law and respecting civil liberties and human rights.
Governments should also address the root causes of terrorism, notably political
alienation due to prejudice, state-sponsored violence and poverty. Terrorists strike
innocent civilians, often randomly, and without warning. We think we can protect
ourselves against other forms of violence, but we feel defenseless against terrorists.
Terrorist acts can cause ripple effects through the economy that have
negative impacts. If this continues, and war is the only option for security to fight
against it, I would agree on the premise.

2. Do you agree with the statement of former British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher that ‘there is no alternative’ which means governments, the society,
politicians, and economic, have to adjust to the coming or existence of globalization?

Yes, I agree with her statement. We need to adjust to every aspect of our life.
Every single day we innovate to suffice our needs that may or may not help our
society to grow. Everyday or not, people thought of putting up a store, making new
gadgets that may help to make our lives easier. Globalization is inevitable. We can’t
undo globalization, but we can improve it. The governments, the society, politicians,
and economic have to adjusts to the existence of globalization; we can’t keep on
doing the same old things without welcoming new things or new ways that makes our
country to move forward for new opportunities that will lead to more gains. It boost
significant opportunity to growth and productivity through wider participation in trade
and investment. By adjusting means broadening participation in the global economy.
Because the world is already so connected, most people don’t notice globalization at
work every single day. But the world is getting smaller, and companies need to
understand what this means for the future of doing business. Companies that don’t
embrace globalization risk losing a competitive advantage, which allows other
businesses to take over new opportunities in the global marketplace. With the
competent government, acting in partnership and unlocking the potential of rapid
technological advance and deepening regional economic integration, can overcome
some of the growing contradictions of globalization, even as the world enters an
uncertain period of demographic change and a sharpening contest between
economic winners and losers. It’s up to the society and government on how will they
portray adjustments on globalization, if they will have a limit on it or just totally
embrace everything that involves other countries.