Generally, when American citizens think of terrorism, certain stereotypes sadly come to mind. When talking about terrorism in America, it is quite uncommon to have the debate circulate around Ireland. The Provisional Irish Republican Army, commonly known as, "the IRA," is a group in Northern Ireland that has used forms of terrorism to make statements about their beliefs concerning the future of Ireland, specifically Northern Ireland, for the past 30 years.
One might ask, "What does this have to do with the United States role as a super power?" In terms of this question, it is interesting that in the past few years, the United States government has not done much to aid in this situation. I have done some research into the type of aid being provided by the United States, and frankly I cannot find much of anything about our role in creating peace in the country, other than words of encouragement. Luckily, it seems that lately the Irish have agreed on a treaty, but this is not to say that there was not any violence and killings before. The United States role as the super power of the world in this situation is interesting because of the fact that stopping terrorism is one of the main goals of the government's foreign policy, but in this situation, it seems that the United States gave the cold shoulder to helping Northern Ireland.
I am confused about my position on role of the U.S. in this affair because of what my beliefs are concerning the roles of the U.S. as a global power. Although there has been human suffering from this organization, I think that the U.S. government's actions portray the sad truth that the situation has not had a significant enough impact on the world to be deemed a priority. Luckily the situation has had resolve in the lately, but it is interesting to me that helping Northern Ireland would be much less troubling than taking on the issues of countries like Iraq, but nothing has really been done to help this country. This situation portrays the reality that as much as we want the U.S. to help in every situation that has unjustness for people it cannot. This strengthens my theory that the best solution to help the world is to make it a worldly goal of industrialized countries to end the conflict in these types of situations. As of now, this worldly attitude is only capable of happening through hard work by a country like the U.S. who has the ability to be a leader of all countries.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
How Long We Got?
As history portrays, there has been no global power that has survived for forever. In this sense, I believe that it is less than likely that the United States will be the supreme power of the world for the rest of time. Do not confuse this with the idea that the U.S. will collapse, because of the foundations of our country are strong, but there are countries that are becoming more powerful and having and greater influence on the world. One of these countries is China. Many researchers believe that China will soon join the U.S. as king of the hill in the world. This is the theory because of the success that China is having economically, and how important it is to the rejuvenation of the global economy.
There are scattered fears that China will topple the United States, but many do not believe this is so because the countries are not adversaries. These fears result from the fact that The People's Republic of China is communist regime, which strikes fear in the hearts of many who hear the word uttered. I think that the future relations between America and China will be very interesting because of the polar opinions that both countries have in many situations. The fact is that there are many reasons for why America does not have much control over the government of China. The only thing that America and the rest of the world can do is ask for the Chinese to do things differently. This makes things interesting because of situations like the conflict between China and Tibet and China's view of the conflict in Sudan. The differences of opinions for the U.S. and China in these situations put tension on the relationship between the countries.
I believe that the future will be an interesting place when China and the U.S. are considered equal in power. China is an example where the U.S. cannot pursue democracy in the same influential way that it does in third-world nations. The world just has to hope that China has the entire world's interests in mind, and that they will want to join the U.S. in lessening the amount of human suffering in the world.
There are scattered fears that China will topple the United States, but many do not believe this is so because the countries are not adversaries. These fears result from the fact that The People's Republic of China is communist regime, which strikes fear in the hearts of many who hear the word uttered. I think that the future relations between America and China will be very interesting because of the polar opinions that both countries have in many situations. The fact is that there are many reasons for why America does not have much control over the government of China. The only thing that America and the rest of the world can do is ask for the Chinese to do things differently. This makes things interesting because of situations like the conflict between China and Tibet and China's view of the conflict in Sudan. The differences of opinions for the U.S. and China in these situations put tension on the relationship between the countries.
I believe that the future will be an interesting place when China and the U.S. are considered equal in power. China is an example where the U.S. cannot pursue democracy in the same influential way that it does in third-world nations. The world just has to hope that China has the entire world's interests in mind, and that they will want to join the U.S. in lessening the amount of human suffering in the world.
A Reflection of Thyself
When reviewing my blog, it is clear to me that there have been evolutions in my processes beyond the lessening of the amount of grammatical errors. When reading my historical first post, I can understand that I had pre-conceived notions about what I thought was right and where I stood regarding the role of the United States in world issues. At the same time, I feel now that my previous views were not immature, because by no means was I oblivious to the idea that sacrifice is inevitable in all situations. I am also impressed that I was cognizant of the fact that no longer does the U.S. have the ability to do everything by itself, as some of our previous administrations have believed. I understood that a greater amount of success can come from a worldly effort to lessen human suffering.
In terms of what I have learned, I think I have grown in my ability to portray my views and knowledge of subjects in a more precise and confident manner, and deepened my understanding of the complexity of the issues that the U.S. faces. I have come to the realization that sometimes, in order to understand a whole picture, it is important to focus solely on singular parts. Through this technique I have been able to gain a great amount of insight into the purposes of certain types of foreign policy. My research has allowed me to understand that almost equal negative aspects couple the positives of good-hearted actions. I have grown in my thinking to be more realistic that sometimes the best choice is not the choice that my conscious wants. My view has also deepened by my acknowledgement that in order to have more strength in my argument I must understand all dimensions of the argument. This has caused me to look more into the positive and negative effects of methods used in foreign policy, instead of just the ways in which I believe that government should act.
Through my deepening of knowledge, I have been able to strengthen my abilities to emit what I know precisely. I also have evolved by becoming multi-dimensionally knowledgeable about the argument over the role of the U.S. as the supreme power of the world.
In terms of what I have learned, I think I have grown in my ability to portray my views and knowledge of subjects in a more precise and confident manner, and deepened my understanding of the complexity of the issues that the U.S. faces. I have come to the realization that sometimes, in order to understand a whole picture, it is important to focus solely on singular parts. Through this technique I have been able to gain a great amount of insight into the purposes of certain types of foreign policy. My research has allowed me to understand that almost equal negative aspects couple the positives of good-hearted actions. I have grown in my thinking to be more realistic that sometimes the best choice is not the choice that my conscious wants. My view has also deepened by my acknowledgement that in order to have more strength in my argument I must understand all dimensions of the argument. This has caused me to look more into the positive and negative effects of methods used in foreign policy, instead of just the ways in which I believe that government should act.
Through my deepening of knowledge, I have been able to strengthen my abilities to emit what I know precisely. I also have evolved by becoming multi-dimensionally knowledgeable about the argument over the role of the U.S. as the supreme power of the world.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
With Power Comes Responsibility: A Theory
In every situation that deals with foreign policy, the circumstances for the need of aid are different. This causes people to have differing opinions about the type of aid that should be provided to countries individually. Because of this, I feel that the argument over what the role of the U.S. should be as the global superpower centers around what values the U.S. should promote in other countries, and what tactics should be used to mandate these ideals.
In order for polarized sides to find a common ground, it is important for these sides to realize the difference between realistic and idealistic goals that can be accomplished as a super power. What is also important for opposing sides to realize is that the issues that the U.S. is trying to solve are at such a large scale that all plans and situations have sacrifices. Both opinions must also be open to listening to the reasons for the opposite sides opinions.
I think that this issue has become such a contentious issue because people will always want to help change the world. This belief, coupled with the amount of power that the U.S. has, causes citizens to feel strongly about helping others. The problem is that not everybody agrees on how the world should be changed. What also makes the situation so contentious is the deep feelings that people have surrounding their opinion of the value of life, and if lessening suffering in other countries is worth sacrifice in our country and the deaths of fellow citizens.
In order for polarized sides to find a common ground, it is important for these sides to realize the difference between realistic and idealistic goals that can be accomplished as a super power. What is also important for opposing sides to realize is that the issues that the U.S. is trying to solve are at such a large scale that all plans and situations have sacrifices. Both opinions must also be open to listening to the reasons for the opposite sides opinions.
I think that this issue has become such a contentious issue because people will always want to help change the world. This belief, coupled with the amount of power that the U.S. has, causes citizens to feel strongly about helping others. The problem is that not everybody agrees on how the world should be changed. What also makes the situation so contentious is the deep feelings that people have surrounding their opinion of the value of life, and if lessening suffering in other countries is worth sacrifice in our country and the deaths of fellow citizens.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Israel
It is common knowledge that the United States supports Israel. This can be seen by factual information like the statistic that we give more money in foreign aid to Israel than any other country (excluding Iraq and Afghanistan). What is so intriguing about this situation is that almost all the aid is given in order for Israel to buy weapons. The debate over whether the U.S. should support Israel or not is very emotional for many people because of the history behind the creation of the country. I find the debate over whether the U.S. should support Israel very difficult to assess because of the tough situation the country is in. Yes, Israel's government very closely resembles the United States, and yes, Israel has some similar values to the U.S., but at the same time, there are many situations in which Israel does not support peace between their country and those surrounding them. Many theories can use evidence to demonstrate how Israel has to fight for its' land, or else surrounding nations would destroy the country, but it is difficult to get over the amount of damage that Israel has inflicted on Palestinians and other Islamic nations. The question comes down to, how does the U.S. give support to a parliamentary democracy that kills thousands of people?
The argument over what should be the United States' role in Israel could be debated for vast amounts of time. I think what is interesting about this debate is the fact that the situation with Israel is another example of the United States' lack of ability to lead the United Nations. Sadly, the United States disagrees with the opinions of the United Nations on what type of aid should be given to the country of Israel. I am not trying to say that I believe in either side of the argument of if the U.S. should support Israel, but I think that the U.S. could do a better job as the super power of the world in leading other nations to finding agreement. At the same time it should be noted that Israel is another situation where the U.S. is trapped in their decisions regarding the country, because the stakes are so high for the nation of Israel. Besides this, I think that the U.S. relationship with Israel is an interesting topic that portrays the responsibilities and actions that the U.S. is taking as the super power of the globe.
The argument over what should be the United States' role in Israel could be debated for vast amounts of time. I think what is interesting about this debate is the fact that the situation with Israel is another example of the United States' lack of ability to lead the United Nations. Sadly, the United States disagrees with the opinions of the United Nations on what type of aid should be given to the country of Israel. I am not trying to say that I believe in either side of the argument of if the U.S. should support Israel, but I think that the U.S. could do a better job as the super power of the world in leading other nations to finding agreement. At the same time it should be noted that Israel is another situation where the U.S. is trapped in their decisions regarding the country, because the stakes are so high for the nation of Israel. Besides this, I think that the U.S. relationship with Israel is an interesting topic that portrays the responsibilities and actions that the U.S. is taking as the super power of the globe.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Could you Give Me More Sanctions?
The United States has decided that the countries of Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Lebanon, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and Zimbabwe should be sanctioned. This is the action being taken by the United States because the government believes that this step will cause these countries to change their ruling methods in some way. This is an interesting method to use in order to receive compliance by other countries because physical warfare is not involved. Instead, economic warfare is being used in order to try to change the countries attitudes. This is an interesting type of warfare because instead of hurting the people of the government directly, it causes the lives of the citizens of the countries to be a struggle, which in turn hurts the government. I find this to be an interesting strategy because it is a double-edged sword: citizens are suffering in order to help these same citizens in the long run. By understanding economic warfare along with physical warfare, it can be understood how difficult it is for the U.S. to make a decision as the world power that does not affect innocent people.
America believes that as the superpower of the world, it will be able to have a great enough influence through sanctions to cause these countries to give their citizens more freedom. Sadly, in places like Cuba, this strategy has been unsuccessful. Also, the lack of success that this strategy has had in stopping the research of nuclear weapons in North Korea causes alarm. I feel that sanctions have the ability to cause countries to be influenced, but these sanctions would have to be very severe. Because it is difficult for a country to be self-reliant, severe sanctions would cause countries to have to change their ways. The problem is that severe sanctions would entail that all countries of the world would have to abide by the sanctioning of a country. Another major problem with sanctions is how citizens are affected more than the government, and severe sanctions would cause even greater problems for these citizens. Also, the suffering of innocent people goes against what the U.S. should be trying to do as the world power. Sanctions also cause citizens of countries to not like the U.S. because of the suffering that the citizens must endure. Because not only the government is suffering through this action, and the lack of success that sanctions have accomplished in places like Cuba, it is difficult to decide if the sanctioning of a country is a valid idea for the United States to employ to promote democracy in the world.
America believes that as the superpower of the world, it will be able to have a great enough influence through sanctions to cause these countries to give their citizens more freedom. Sadly, in places like Cuba, this strategy has been unsuccessful. Also, the lack of success that this strategy has had in stopping the research of nuclear weapons in North Korea causes alarm. I feel that sanctions have the ability to cause countries to be influenced, but these sanctions would have to be very severe. Because it is difficult for a country to be self-reliant, severe sanctions would cause countries to have to change their ways. The problem is that severe sanctions would entail that all countries of the world would have to abide by the sanctioning of a country. Another major problem with sanctions is how citizens are affected more than the government, and severe sanctions would cause even greater problems for these citizens. Also, the suffering of innocent people goes against what the U.S. should be trying to do as the world power. Sanctions also cause citizens of countries to not like the U.S. because of the suffering that the citizens must endure. Because not only the government is suffering through this action, and the lack of success that sanctions have accomplished in places like Cuba, it is difficult to decide if the sanctioning of a country is a valid idea for the United States to employ to promote democracy in the world.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
How to Choose Which Lives to Save: An Analysis
The amount of evil that plagues our world is horrifying. Through the first few weeks of this project I have researched the United States' interactions with the global community. Because the United States is considered the super power of the world, I have focused on how the U.S. has dealt with this responsibility and what has been its’ goals as this entity. My belief is that as the global super power, the United States needs to find ways to promote democracy and lessen human suffering. The main issue that I address in my blog is how these goals should be accomplished. This is a complicated argument because of the emotional feelings that come along with human sacrifices for the greater good and the debate that surrounds the question of if physical violence should be used to help pacifistic leaders gain power.
The main issue of the United States role as a leader of the world is centered on how the United States should influence other countries. Political opinions differ on this subject because of differing beliefs of if life is worth sacrificing in order to save more lives. The previous administration seemed to believe that life was worth sacrificing in that in 2003 the U.S. invaded Iraq, but at the same time this invasion has not necessarily caused any less violence in the country up to this point in time. At the same time, there are many cases where the U.S. has taken the humanitarian route in order to provide support to other countries. This position is also debated because of the lack of success it has had in saving lives in violent areas of the world.
Because the U.S. provides aid to over 150 countries, one can ponder if being a super power is enough for the U.S. in order to protect the people in these countries by itself. I believe that the amount of human suffering that goes on in the world validates that the only way for human suffering to be decreased is to have a world effort to fix these problems. Sadly, world programs such as the United Nations and NATO have not shown the capability of having success at providing leadership to the world. Because of these failures, I believe that the United States' role as a super power should be to lead other countries into changing the world. I feel that this will be a very important responsibility for the United States in the near future because of impeding situations like Iran, Pakistan, and Darfur where the amount of aid needed is more than the U.S. can supply by itself. It must be a global motive to stop human suffering throughout the world. The problem presented through this opinion is the fact that there is no correct answer as to if the human suffering should be squelched through physical actions or humanitarian aid because of the negatives that come with both choices of action. The realistic fact may be that neither way of dealing with other countries lacks sacrifices, and both mainstream ideas will never be completely successful. Thus, maybe the most important thing to accomplish is to have the lessening of human suffering made into one of the priorities of the entire civilized world. The United States is the only country that can accomplish this task because of our abilities as the super power of the world.
Links
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/16/AR2009101603309.html
This site depicts the United States new policies in Sudan. It also gives rough estimates as to how many people have lost their lives and homes because of the genocide. It provides information on the effect that the genocide has had on the lives of the Sudanese citizens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101700479.html
This site offers contrasting opinions of what policies should be enacted in order to deal with the government of Sudan. It establishes how polices of the new administration are different from the Bush administration’s policies. The site also provides insight into how politicians’ views differ on how the situation should be handled.
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/darfur.html
This site illustrates the major aid program that the United States uses for humanitarian purposes. The humanitarian aid is portrayed in terms of how the United States provides aid to the country of Sudan and the province of Darfur. It establishes what services are provided to the region in order to lessen human suffering.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0611/p01s04-woaf.html
Here is some information as to how the relief that is being given in the region of Darfur is unsuccessful. It gives reasons as to why this is happening and how improbable it is that the relief will ever be successful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101101554.html
This article illustrates how the current administration has dealt with foreign powers. The article represents the view of the United States foreign policy from foreign powers instead of the portrayal of the effect of our administration from our administration.
http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/ForeignAid.pdf
This is a governmental packet of the Congressional report on foreign aid and how this aid will be used. It is in a PDF format.
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/who-gets-us-foreign-aid.html
This site gives a readable and presentable table of information concerning the amount of money that is given to other countries by the United States. The Site provides links to government information about the amount of money in the yearly budget that is set-aside for foreign aid.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/101438.pdf
This site illustrates the amount of aid given to the entire African region. It also provides information on the goals that the government believes the money will accomplish with this money. It provides instructions as to how these goals will be accomplished.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/14/AR2009101402732.html
The site illustrates the events that are taking place in Pakistan. It provides information on how the U.S. is aiding the government in order to promote democracy, and how the U.S. has given aid to the country in the past. Also gives information on the lack of stability in the region.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/14/AR2009101400365.html
Here is an example of a group that has destroyed democracy through militaristic means in order to maintain power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100903191.html
This site illustrates how a third-world government is using its’ resources in order to keep control. It also presents Aung San Suu Kyi’s situation in Myanmar and how she is a promoter of democracy and her people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5071966.stm
Here is information depicting what the life of a citizen consists of under a militaristic totalitarian government.
http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2008-05-15-voa3.cfm
Here are some ways in which the United States has provided humanitarian aid to Burma.
http://www.cigionline.org/articles/2009/03/should-world-force-aid-burma
Here is a theoretical policy that the United Nation’s has created in order to prevent human suffering.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802549_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009101802591
This site provides information on the increasing issue of terrorism that the United States will have to deal with in the near future.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html
This is a bias opinion of how the war in Iraq was a bad choice.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraq-war-has-been-good-for-us-polish-president/63354/
This is an opinion of how the War in Iraq was a good choice for the United States. It depicts that the war has caused the U.S. to become more of a global super power.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/what_is_nato.htm
This site explains a global agency that has been created to make the world a safer place. The site is the official website of NATO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101900199.html
Here is site that illustrates how other countries are attempting to do their part in ridding the world of terrorism. It describes the aggressive military procedures that Pakistan is using to destroy the Taliban in South Waziristan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101700673.html?hpid=topnews
These are some statistics about the number of forces that the Pakistani government is employing in its country to offensively attack the Taliban.
The main issue of the United States role as a leader of the world is centered on how the United States should influence other countries. Political opinions differ on this subject because of differing beliefs of if life is worth sacrificing in order to save more lives. The previous administration seemed to believe that life was worth sacrificing in that in 2003 the U.S. invaded Iraq, but at the same time this invasion has not necessarily caused any less violence in the country up to this point in time. At the same time, there are many cases where the U.S. has taken the humanitarian route in order to provide support to other countries. This position is also debated because of the lack of success it has had in saving lives in violent areas of the world.
Because the U.S. provides aid to over 150 countries, one can ponder if being a super power is enough for the U.S. in order to protect the people in these countries by itself. I believe that the amount of human suffering that goes on in the world validates that the only way for human suffering to be decreased is to have a world effort to fix these problems. Sadly, world programs such as the United Nations and NATO have not shown the capability of having success at providing leadership to the world. Because of these failures, I believe that the United States' role as a super power should be to lead other countries into changing the world. I feel that this will be a very important responsibility for the United States in the near future because of impeding situations like Iran, Pakistan, and Darfur where the amount of aid needed is more than the U.S. can supply by itself. It must be a global motive to stop human suffering throughout the world. The problem presented through this opinion is the fact that there is no correct answer as to if the human suffering should be squelched through physical actions or humanitarian aid because of the negatives that come with both choices of action. The realistic fact may be that neither way of dealing with other countries lacks sacrifices, and both mainstream ideas will never be completely successful. Thus, maybe the most important thing to accomplish is to have the lessening of human suffering made into one of the priorities of the entire civilized world. The United States is the only country that can accomplish this task because of our abilities as the super power of the world.
Links
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/16/AR2009101603309.html
This site depicts the United States new policies in Sudan. It also gives rough estimates as to how many people have lost their lives and homes because of the genocide. It provides information on the effect that the genocide has had on the lives of the Sudanese citizens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101700479.html
This site offers contrasting opinions of what policies should be enacted in order to deal with the government of Sudan. It establishes how polices of the new administration are different from the Bush administration’s policies. The site also provides insight into how politicians’ views differ on how the situation should be handled.
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/darfur.html
This site illustrates the major aid program that the United States uses for humanitarian purposes. The humanitarian aid is portrayed in terms of how the United States provides aid to the country of Sudan and the province of Darfur. It establishes what services are provided to the region in order to lessen human suffering.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0611/p01s04-woaf.html
Here is some information as to how the relief that is being given in the region of Darfur is unsuccessful. It gives reasons as to why this is happening and how improbable it is that the relief will ever be successful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101101554.html
This article illustrates how the current administration has dealt with foreign powers. The article represents the view of the United States foreign policy from foreign powers instead of the portrayal of the effect of our administration from our administration.
http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/ForeignAid.pdf
This is a governmental packet of the Congressional report on foreign aid and how this aid will be used. It is in a PDF format.
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/who-gets-us-foreign-aid.html
This site gives a readable and presentable table of information concerning the amount of money that is given to other countries by the United States. The Site provides links to government information about the amount of money in the yearly budget that is set-aside for foreign aid.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/101438.pdf
This site illustrates the amount of aid given to the entire African region. It also provides information on the goals that the government believes the money will accomplish with this money. It provides instructions as to how these goals will be accomplished.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/14/AR2009101402732.html
The site illustrates the events that are taking place in Pakistan. It provides information on how the U.S. is aiding the government in order to promote democracy, and how the U.S. has given aid to the country in the past. Also gives information on the lack of stability in the region.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/14/AR2009101400365.html
Here is an example of a group that has destroyed democracy through militaristic means in order to maintain power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100903191.html
This site illustrates how a third-world government is using its’ resources in order to keep control. It also presents Aung San Suu Kyi’s situation in Myanmar and how she is a promoter of democracy and her people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5071966.stm
Here is information depicting what the life of a citizen consists of under a militaristic totalitarian government.
http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2008-05-15-voa3.cfm
Here are some ways in which the United States has provided humanitarian aid to Burma.
http://www.cigionline.org/articles/2009/03/should-world-force-aid-burma
Here is a theoretical policy that the United Nation’s has created in order to prevent human suffering.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802549_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009101802591
This site provides information on the increasing issue of terrorism that the United States will have to deal with in the near future.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html
This is a bias opinion of how the war in Iraq was a bad choice.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraq-war-has-been-good-for-us-polish-president/63354/
This is an opinion of how the War in Iraq was a good choice for the United States. It depicts that the war has caused the U.S. to become more of a global super power.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/what_is_nato.htm
This site explains a global agency that has been created to make the world a safer place. The site is the official website of NATO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101900199.html
Here is site that illustrates how other countries are attempting to do their part in ridding the world of terrorism. It describes the aggressive military procedures that Pakistan is using to destroy the Taliban in South Waziristan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101700673.html?hpid=topnews
These are some statistics about the number of forces that the Pakistani government is employing in its country to offensively attack the Taliban.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
One Love
Almost everyone knows of the band U2. With the saying of this band's name, which has conquered music since the late 70s, comes other names like Bono and The Edge. In recent years, U2 has been known for creating great music, but almost just as much for its' positions on worldly issues. Lately, U2 has focused its efforts on illustrating the situation in Burma to its' audiences. For the past 20 years, Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma, has spent almost all of her time under house arrest. Her struggle began in 1990 after her party won an election overwhelmingly over the militaristic regime in Burma. Obviously, the militaristic regime did not like this event and in turn went against the results of the election and took control by putting many leaders of the democratic in jail or under house arrest. Since this event, the country has been under a strict and harsh government which has not allowed the citizens of Burma, which is also known as Myanmar, to have any freedoms. The economy has suffered, living conditions have suffered, freedom has suffered, and altogether in almost every way thinkable the country of Burma has suffered.
These terrible conditions in Burma cause one to think about how the United States should approach the situation. Freedom has been taken away from the citizens to the point where people are being sent into forced labor, and Nobel Peace Prize winners like Aung San Suu Kyi are being imprisoned for nothing other than standing up for democracy and freedom. How can a super power like the U.S. peacefully cause this government to change its policies when it will not because it will lose all of its power through this choice? Secondly, what aggressive strategy can be used to free leaders who have become leaders because of their values of peace? The situation in Burma represents that even though the United States has power, it can not do everything by itself. For this type of situation, the only hope would come from the entire world standing up against the government of Burma. This situation presents evidence that the role of the United States as the superpower of the world should be to bring countries together in order promote freedom. The only hope is that this can be done quickly, or another answer can be found, so that leaders of peaceful movements like Aung San Suu Kyi are able to promote freedom and peace in their countries.
http://www.u2.com/news/title/aung-san-suu-kyi-ambassador-of-conscience
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/burma.html
These terrible conditions in Burma cause one to think about how the United States should approach the situation. Freedom has been taken away from the citizens to the point where people are being sent into forced labor, and Nobel Peace Prize winners like Aung San Suu Kyi are being imprisoned for nothing other than standing up for democracy and freedom. How can a super power like the U.S. peacefully cause this government to change its policies when it will not because it will lose all of its power through this choice? Secondly, what aggressive strategy can be used to free leaders who have become leaders because of their values of peace? The situation in Burma represents that even though the United States has power, it can not do everything by itself. For this type of situation, the only hope would come from the entire world standing up against the government of Burma. This situation presents evidence that the role of the United States as the superpower of the world should be to bring countries together in order promote freedom. The only hope is that this can be done quickly, or another answer can be found, so that leaders of peaceful movements like Aung San Suu Kyi are able to promote freedom and peace in their countries.
http://www.u2.com/news/title/aung-san-suu-kyi-ambassador-of-conscience
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/burma.html
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
How Much Power Do We Have?
My previous entries about our government's actions caused me to think about how much power the United States actually has as a World Power. According to the government, the Department of Defense's budget is 533.7 billion dollars while there are an estimated 1.2 million active personnel enrolled in the military. These figures promote that the United States has one of the largest armies in the world. What also makes the United States powerful is its economy, and our influence in other countries. Because of these traits, it can be understood that the United States has a lot of power and money in order to influence other countries. At the same time there is speculation as to the effect that the United States has had on influencing other countries. In 2003 the United States attempted to lead the United Nations into a joint effort to stop Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Sadly, the outcome of the attempt was not what the U.S. hoped for in that Britain was the only country that followed our lead. It can be said that the U.S. accounts for a large percent of the United Nation's troops, so really it did not matter what the U.N. chose to do but this does not address the issue with the situation. The fact that the United States was incapable of successfully influencing the U.N. brings doubt to the way in which the United States is dealing with the rest of the world.
A common belief in the United States was that we were able to do things on our own. The issues which have arisen in the places where we have situated ourselves with this mentality illustrate that it is not possible for us to do this. We require the support of other countries in order to truly accomplish what should be our goals as the leading power of the world. The problem with this idea is that fact that worldly organizations, like the United Nations, have not been able to accomplish very much. This is gone over more in other blogs such as the blog, Modern Problems with the United Nations by Political_blogger. In order for the U.S. to successfully lead the world, it must make it's goals as a superpower world-orientated, and must be able to influence other countries to help it accomplish these goals.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/intelligence.pdf
http://www.teacheroz.com/Military_History.htm#docs
A common belief in the United States was that we were able to do things on our own. The issues which have arisen in the places where we have situated ourselves with this mentality illustrate that it is not possible for us to do this. We require the support of other countries in order to truly accomplish what should be our goals as the leading power of the world. The problem with this idea is that fact that worldly organizations, like the United Nations, have not been able to accomplish very much. This is gone over more in other blogs such as the blog, Modern Problems with the United Nations by Political_blogger. In order for the U.S. to successfully lead the world, it must make it's goals as a superpower world-orientated, and must be able to influence other countries to help it accomplish these goals.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/intelligence.pdf
http://www.teacheroz.com/Military_History.htm#docs
Friday, October 9, 2009
How do We Choose?
In the 24 years that Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, it is hypothesized that over 600,000 Iraqi citizens were killed. This would mean that on average, 70 to 125 Iraqi's were killed everyday. This is undoubtedly a horrifying statistic, and provides one with an understanding of why our administration in 2003 wanted to do something about the dire situation. The decision of the government to attack Iraq without the approval of the United Nations is controversial because of the debate over what is the role of the United States as the supreme power of the world. Arguments can be made that the U.S. had the responsibility to stop a dictator from ruthlessly destroying citizens of his country, but how much better is Iraq because of the U.S. invasion? Differing sources have varying numbers as to how many civilian deaths have occurred since 2003 in Iraq. Multiple sources believe that violent civilian deaths total near 100,000 but some reports estimate that this number is closer to 600,000. This would mean that since the U.S. invasion, there are still over 100 Iraqi deaths per day. Also, this does not take into account the number of children that have been left without parents, injuries, and poverty, and soldiers which have lost their lives as well. This leads to a questioning of if our invasion of Iraq has actually improved the living conditions for the country.
War has been the norm in Sudan since 1956. This crisis was brought to the attention of the world in 2003, when extremist groups began to kill thousands of civilians. Since 2003, over 400,000 people have been killed, and millions more have lost their homes, and will die in the near future. With these types of statistics, it is easy to comprehend that human suffering is horrendously high. Even though the U.S. does give a large amount of aid to Sudan in the form of Humanitarian efforts, there has not been any motive of the U.S. government to send troops in order to instill peace within the country.
Considering both of these conflict began in 2003, it is interesting that our government decided to pursue Iraq instead of the province of Darfur in Sudan. The decision of the U.S. on this behalf promotes that there are other interests, other than helping those in need, that causes the U.S. to take action. It is upsetting that we have not used more of our abilities as the largest power of the world to help those of Darfur.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/US-publishes-Iraq-civilian-death.5682009.jp
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/sudan/index.html
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Power and Responsibility
The war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan have both required U.S. troops. The people of Sudan and Haiti have required aid in order for their citizens to survive. Iran and North Korea are looking for nuclear weapons. Multiple countries' governments are corrupted. As the leader of the world, the United States has the responsibility to aid in affairs across the globe. This is said to be the job of the United Nations, but the United States has even more obligation to help other countries. At the same time, the U.S. has limited resources. This causes the U.S. to have to decide who is the most important to help. Should we give aid to help political leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi gain freedom and establish democracy in Burma, or do we invest our time and effort into wars against terror in the Middle-East? Also, who questions our actions as a country, and what situations we have the right to take control of? With these questions in mind, I believe that the U.S. should concentrate its efforts as a world leader by giving aid to groups who are standing up for democracy in their nations and to countries who are suffering from disasters like poverty. This blog will discuss issues about what actions should be taken to accomplish these goals. Is it correct to use violence to help leaders who want to establish democracy through peace? Do we have the right to enforce democracy in other nations? I find that these arguments are multi-dimensional because the situations all differ because of events that have taken place in the past. With this in mind, the goal of every situation that the U.S. approaches should be to lessen human suffering.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,558921,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133436,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/06/us.pakistan/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
