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

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

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/