Risk

As we began playing risk, one of the realistic aspects of the game was the realization that the super was my team, blue. I connected this to the United States because we have a lot of resources and influence with other countries. We are also allied with many countries as well. To the world, we look like winners but even the winners can be vulnerable. They are vulnerable to people attacking them because they are so powerful. For example, we wanted power in Ukraine and the green team took advantage of that and attacked us. We put our trust in our alliances not know that people wanted to be against the blue team. Additionally, even though people wanted to go against us they still wanted to be our ally because of the resources we had.
Something that I found unrealistic about the game was that there were not any uprisings from civilians of states. We spent our time going to war with other colors in the game without thinking about the casualties and people who are affected. There could be people who want to attack against our own government and that would be interesting to see how that would play out in the game. Also, I feel like world council sessions go more into depth and I felt like we did not say much during the world council sessions.
One thing I would change about the game is that everyone should have at least 2 superpowers because I felt like some powers were more powerful than others. For example, blue only had 3 armies and we did not find much use for them because we already had a lot of armies and it did not make much of a difference. I also wish we had military strategy tips because I was not sure what to do or what was the best strategy to keep Ukraine.
                                                                                                                           



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more

Blog 3 Jared Rostkowski Why NAFTA is not "The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever"

Why NAFTA isn't “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever” Jared Rostkowski On September 25th 2016 during the first presidential debate of 2016, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement as “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.” NAFTA is the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, which eliminated tariffs between the three countries. Trump has continued to voice his displeasure with the trade deal, mostly with Mexico. Anyway, NAFTA is not the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, in fact, it is actually a trade deal that the 3 countries benefit greatly from the trade deal, and we should not pull out of it anytime soon.  So what does Trump dislike about the deal. His main displeasure comes with the fact that many companies from the U.S. are moving manufacturing to Mexico, to take advantage of Mexico’s cheap labor. Trump argued that companies like For...
Read more
Yousuf Sander                          Why Syrian Intervention is a Bad Play for the U.S. Foreign intervention has become a staple policy choice if the United States since the early decades of the 20 th century. Time and time again, we have intervened in order to protect our interests, installing dictators in Latin America, toppling them in the middle east, all in order to protect our foreign interests. However, what is the right course of action when a crisis occurs that does not put our interests at stake? How, as the world ’ s foremost superpower, can we sit by and do nothing as the crisis evolves in Syria? Though intervention may seem like the obvious choice, we must weigh the costs, and our decision must be strategically based and thought out. For this reason, I don ’ t believe intervention is the right option due to the reactionary and impulsive nature ...
Read more