Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Another extra credit option
Please take the 26-question American presidential selector quiz at the link below.www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html Then, post your top three candidates who are still viable (not the ideal *1). Finally, provide your opinion about these results. Do they surprise you, or not? Did you learn anything? If so, what, specifically?
You may post this or email to me, as one has already....
You may post this or email to me, as one has already....
Blog Archive
About Me
18 comments:
Journal #6
PP 344-345
A Silver of Russia Trapped in Europe
Kaliningrad was formally Konigsberg and is 750 years old. It was renamed after WWII. Part of Russia the city lies between Poland and Lithuania which causes problems. With Poland and Lithuania joining the EU area residents of Kaliningrad needed visas to pass though to get to Russia. The city suffered a tragic episode during WWII. Nazis rounded up the remaining 7,000 Jews, drove them to the coast and shoot them, leaving their bodies to fall in the Baltic Sea. At the end of the war 50,000 of 316,000 people survived. Only 12% of the buildings survived after the war and many people had fled the land. Kaliningrad is one of the poorest regions of Russia today, but the region has the highest immigration rate in Russia, third highest per capita for ownership of cars worldwide, and a large number of ethnic restaurants. While their fishing industry has declined, Kaliningrad’s oil, peat and coal industries are doing well. They produce 90% of the world’s amber and also 7.5% of Russia’s furniture, TV’s and vacuum cleaners. The Russian media depicts Kaliningrad as being a black hole of the economy. Kaliningrad’s isolation from Russia has had a negative impact on the residents. Many travel to Europe instead of Russia. Many of the youth feel looked down on by the EU and abandoned by Russia. I believe that it is horrible what people have to go through because somebody doesn’t agree with their way of life. WWII was a time of suffering that made it difficult for Kaliningrad to regain its German population. Nobody wants to live in a destroyed city and even worst it takes a dedicated and devoted citizen to stay and restore the city. Sezneva says that as a whole the city is doing great, but it seems to me that Russia still doesn’t except the efforts.
The War In Iraq
**This is a topic of my choice about something political going on in the world now**
I choose to talk about the war in Iraq because I feel very strongly about this subject. From my understanding Bush sent our troops to Iraq for many different reasons. First, it was to find Osma Ben Linden, well he was no were to be found. Then it was because they had nuclear weapons and we didn’t find any. Well now its do we can make Iraq a democracy. First, I believe that the war would have been for good cause if we actually found Osma Ben Linden or nuclear weapons, but we didn’t. Now President Bush wants to change the way Iraq is. I don’t believe that’s right. There are different countries and cultures in this world for a reason. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think that murdering your wife or daughter because they betrayed the family is right, but people in other cultures that grew up with the values and teachings that have had for years are used to those teachings and values and we shouldn’t go in and change that. Another things that makes me mad about this war is the fact that it has been going on for about 7 years now and we haven’t accomplished anything in my eyes. Bush is sending more and more troops to Iraq and Iraqis and Americans are dying everyday. Some of the Iraqis that are dying are innocent men, women, and children that don’t have anything to do with terror. Many of our troops are fighting and dying in this war for no reason. I mean how fair is it to send a person that’s freshly 18 into a battle zone where people die every single day. I think that congress needs to over ride President Bush’s power. Right now there pretty much giving Bush blank checks and letting him spend it anyway he wants. I believe that if congress would make Bush send everything that he wants to do to them before anything is done then it would save the Untied States money and save out troops. I really don’t believe that any of our troops should be in Iraq and I’m happy that this time next year we will have a new president and hopefully he or she will pull our troops out of Iraq. I also believe that President Bush knows that he messed up by starting this war in the first place and is trying to “save face” by keeping our troops in Iraq, but whatever his motives are, our troops shouldn’t be in Iraq.
p. 82-83
When peacekeepers prey instead of protect
U.N. seeking more women officers
In recent years there have been reports that male peacekeeping soldiers have preyed on women, often under 18, in vulnerable populations. Some have even bought sex for payments ranging from two eggs to$5. Between Jan 2004 to Nov 2006, 319 peacekeeping personnel worldwide were investigated for sexual misconduct or abuse. Out of that 144 military, 17 police were sent home. “You get these abuses not just with peacekeepers but with soldiers in general, and it gets worst the further they are from home and the more destitute the local population,” says Richard Reeve. The U.N. is now starting to send female peacekeepers instead of men to certain areas. India sent the first all female police unit to Liberia, where there have been accusations of trading food for sex with teenagers. The U.N. is trying to recruit more female soldiers or peacekeepers because it sends a message to the local society that a woman can do the same job as a man. The U.N. is trying to get rid of the argument between different cultures with a “Duty of Care” code. This code states that all peacekeepers have to abide by local customs or laws, or the customs or laws of their own country.
These peacekeepers are paid to help keep societies and local population safe, but instead they have abused the power that has been given to them by sexually abusing vulnerable females and sometimes even impregnating them. Just because there are people live differently or poorer than others doesn’t make them less of a human then the rest of us. They still have rights and still should be treated with respect.
Lovely Jackson
Blog 6
I am doing this blog on the Iraq war, veterans and families affected. I saw this solider on the Montel Williams show on Monday and it outraged me. This solider was on his second tour of duty when his vehicle got blown up by kerosene. The guy suffered third degree burns over ninty percent of his body and he had two bullets explode and penetrate his leg. The solider said that after his injury the army did not really have a need for him anymore. This guy has had a total of forty three surgeries and he needs a lot more. What really shocked me was the fact that the army only pays fifty percent of his medical bills. When I was in the military I was supposed to go to Iraq for a year, and I was fortunate to not go because I stood up for what I believed and said no. When I did not go to Iraq the Army was going to make me get out of the Army. Recently my cousin’s husband died in Iraq because of an IED attack. He died fighting for his country and I am so honored that he was part of the family. I feel sorry for my cousin because she will be raising four children alone. I have had several family and friends that have went to Iraq and I thank god that they came back home safely. So many soldiers have died in the war and I personally think that President Bush needs to take a hard long look at his self and think about every life lost and every family affected. My sister said that she knows for a fact that the death toll is much higher that what they report on TV.
Rickey Clay
POL200
(pg. 93)
Does the world community have a “responsibility to protect?”
Gareth Evans believes that in this debate that when the state falls short of protecting against “man-made” tragedies, then the responsibility should shift to international communities. He states that the UN in fact made this responsibility important during a summit in 2005 and basically voted for it. The UN decision, or help in the matter, became an issue because the underwhelming response to the idea. While the venue was there to use, it was often used in such an erratic or conflicting manner that it trumped the whole purpose of international protection. Evans uses Rwanda, Somalia, and more recently, Kosovo as examples of how unproductive action, or erratic responses can lead to dire consequences. He believes the concept is there, and needed, but the acceptance of the policy isn’t being respectfully addressed.
Upon reading the title of the article, it made me quick to make assumptions. Perhaps Bush’s somewhat forceful initiaon of this current war was my reason to jump to conclusions. But “responsibility to protect” sounds as though it is a belief system that would require full throttle action and response times, and also acceptance. Remembering what it was like when I was living in Europe, and watching live footage of what was going on in Kosovo, and staying informed on the attacks, I would want to have seen that situation handled a little more productively; ultimately saving lives. Of course, a contrary opinion I also hold is the sometimes presumed objective intent of international involvement actually being subjectively driven becoming an underlying issue. Additionally, my biggest concern is making enemies in the process of protecting the world community. The world is a big place to try and keep everyone happy with your decision making; especially when it’s taken in as “your” responsibility in “their” homeland. I’m not sure if I fully grasp the concept of the responsibility to protect issue, but I am most definitely on the fence with it nonetheless by the information I do know thus far.
Rickey Clay
POL200
(pg. 144-145)
Torture has escalated in Iraq
Even though Sadam Hussein is no longer around to facilitate the inhumanely perpetuate torture, it is still a wide-spread issue in the country. In fact, it is said that it may now be even more of an issue now than before with concerns that the country may be in the midst of a civil war. “Bodies brought to the Baghdad morgue often bear signs of acid-induced injuries, broken limbs and wounds caused by power drills and nails…” are just some of the showings of torture reported by U.N. investigators.
Troops in Iraq (both American and Iraqi) found a Baghdad prison which is expected of being utilized as a torture facility run by the Interior Ministry; site 4. Many believe the cataclysmic upheaval of violence and torture in the country is a result of a country left in shambles through war efforts. No law and order and the rising of civil war expectancy has to be taken into consideration when searching for determining factors of the issue at hand. Also, the employment of officals and generals to participate in the war efforts in Iraq who were known to use torture tactics during their previous employment(s) can also be link to the problem. Police, jailers, and intelligence agents all have been suspected of using various torture methods; some of whom had relating types of jobs under Saddam.
The issues of torture is a direct casualty of war. Prior to the release of video tapes and audio recordings and written reports of torture (shown, heard, and described in full detail) I think that the issue was quietly accepted. No one wanted to know how information was found out during the times of war, but I believe most actually knew. It is now becoming an issue with Humans Rights Activists because of constant reporting of the violent tactics. I look at torture somewhat the same way I look at the death penalty--which I’m also opposed to: while some of the people who receive torture (death penalty) may be the scum of the Earth, we as humane people should remain implicitly “humane” in reacting to these people’s behavior rather than succumbing to the same type of response we’re persecuting them for. Also, running the risk of subjecting someone innocent to these types of decisions is too strong a risk. On a much smaller scale, expressed to the layman, torture is barbaric and Humans Rights Activists are right in their involvement. It is paramount that we show decorum in a time of turmoil to resemble a people which can react responsibly under the most extreme conditions; indirectly lowering the negative opinions and suspicion of a bad decision being made.
pg. 17
Should Congress try to block President Bush’s ability to send additional troops to Iraq?
This article was displayed as a debate between Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass and Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. Senator Kennedy argued that “yes”, congress should continue to try to block the President’s ability to send more troops to fight this war on terror. Detentions testing the boundaries of the Geneva Convention, eavesdropping on private citizen’s telephones, as well as intercepting and reviewing mail and financial records have become points of interest when discussing the limits of responsibility and power when regarding the civil liberties of the American people.
Despite the fact that the American people made their concerns known during the 2004 election and even the President’s top generals opposed an escalation, President Bush has remained committed to his cause.
After the events of 9-11, the country seemed willing to make whatever sacrifices deemed necessary to ensure our safety. Sending more troops to Iraq to further strengthen the ranks already deployed can be seen as a foolish attempt to expedite the process of rebuilding and restructuring Iraq’s government. Congress already knows the reasons why an escalation in troop numbers should be beneficial, but the contrasting arguments from those such as Senator Isakson ask an opposite question. What if he Iraqi government does not successfully move forward? What if we (the U.S. and other nations involved) are giving the Iraqi government, as it is, too much credit in their desire for change? Are they ready to take over for themselves? If not, when will they be ready? Until President Bush can answer these questions and present them to Congress for their approval, I believe that Congress needs to block the President’s ability to send more troops.
Would you kill this baby? Page 301
If I were able to go into the past a kill Adolf Hitler when he was only a year old I do not think I would be able to do so. Even though he does grow to be one of the most horrible men in the world’s history, the things that have happened in the past may have been worse then what Hitler has done. Knowing that I could immediately come back to the future and not be caught for it still could turn out to be worse than things were. I understand that he was responsible for the devastations of WWII and the genocidal acts but as the book states, if Hitler was killed when only a baby then some other ruler would take over and maybe actually defeat Great Britain before attacking Russia. This could lead to more wars and even more suffering if they did win. I believe that things happen for a reason, so we can learn from our mistakes. If it had not have happened when it did, then it could have happened at a later date and been 10 times worse. With this mistake already made, the world can learn from it and not repeat it again because of its horrific tragedies and devastations. As horrible as it was, I believe that it opened up the world’s eyes and showed everyone the extremes that are truly out there if something is taken too far. It would be too risky to change one event in history that had lead to so many other historical events. Even though 10s of millions of people did die because of him it would have happened regardless if it was him or not. Also, I am not one for killing or hurting people, so I do not think I would be able to morally kill him. I would be taking a life and also if I did kill him and the outcome of my actions were to be worse than if I had just left history alone then I would be able to handle that. Even though I would be the only one that knew about it, I would still know and that would be enough. Therefore I could not kill Adolf Hitler even though I know what he would do in the future just because something worse could come from it.
When Peacekeepers Prey Instead of Protect
Pgs. 82-83, Grey box
Global Issues
This article was about reports in recent years that the U.N. male peacekeeping soldiers have preyed on women and how the U.N. is trying to alleviate the problem by getting more female peacekeeping soldiers.
The U.N. had been tarnished with reports that male peacekeeping soldiers were preying on women, often girls under the age of 18 that lived in vulnerable populations. U.N. officials in Congo admitted that a shockingly large amount of these male peacekeepers bought sex from impoverished young girls for payments ranging from 2 eggs to $5. There were some peacekeeping missions that were reported covering these incidents up, including the children that were born as a result.
Now the U.N. is sending women instead of men on certain U.N. troop and police peacekeeping missions. The first all female units were sent to Liberia, which was a location where the male peacekeepers had been accuses of trading sex for food with the teenagers. A senior U.N. police official said that cases of misconduct by women are “almost non-existent”. The presence of female troops helped raise awareness of and respect for women in Liberia and in peacekeeping. It also puts out the message to the local society that women can perform the same jobs as men and seeing these women in strong positions will hopefully reduce violence against them.
Beyond the issue of sexual abuse, the role of women soldiers is important in nations where substantial contact between unrelated men and women are prohibited by religion or custom.
The U.N. peacekeeping forces represent more than 100 countries; therefore the cultural variations make a big difference in both the prominence of women and what behavior is acceptable. The U.N. is now trying to come up with a “Duty of Care” code for all U.N. Peacekeepers that states: “Theses standards apply to all peacekeepers irrespective of local customs or laws, or the customs or laws of your own country”.
In my opinion, a code should have been put forth many years ago instead of letting these sex crimes get pushed under a rug and ignored. It is sad that the U.N. have to recruit women to set an example on proper peacekeeping missions. The male peacekeepers need more training and stricter punishment if the misconduct continues.
PG.407--- Does China present a technological challenge to the U.S.???
I feel china posses a greater challenge thatn just technology. The Chinesse go to school to longer periods, have more advancements in technology, and have a greater desire to learn and go forth and do something with themselves. Some of the smartest people i have ever meet are non americans. They are here do to the desire to fullfill the american dream of doing almost anything, but most of these people are doctors. Even though this country does things very differently form us here in the U.S. these people over come far greater hardships than we and still manage to over come and make something of themselve, unlike the spoiled U.S. whom most will never imagine what these people will go through or even experience it them for themselves. Yes i do believe that china posses a huge threat to the U.S. and other nations because some the brightest and most knowledge have emerged from china.
America Challenged
Truman Petway
As The second president bush entered the white house in January 2001, after he criticized Clinton’s emphasis on his multilateralism, humanitarian intervention, and his nation-building. He effectively went through United Nations channels in the 2001 war against Afghanistan. Bush didn’t invade Iraq till 2003 with acknowledging U.N. sanction. His policies on terrorism and Iraq fell as clear success. Meanwhile U.S. Led efforts failed to deter Iran and North Korea from their nuclear weapons programs. In bush’s early presidency, bush concentrated on domestic issues. August 2001, he claimed he had put our U.S. foreign policy on sound footing, also escalation our relationships with our allies. However in Britain, France, Germany, and Italy believed bush made his decisions on U.S. interests without considering Europeans views. Bush broadened the war on terror when he had his state of the union message in January 2002. He linked all terrorist groups with what he called an “axis of evil” Iran, Iraq and North Korea aimed at destroying the United States. Bush and his national security team had been not so quietly laying plans for a possible invasion of Iraq. Congress approved bush’s resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. On March 20 went ahead and with a coalition said to include forty-eight other countries launched the invasion that overthrew Hussein’s government by mid April. Bush stated on May 1, 2003 that major combat operations were over proved to be premature at best. In the meantime the U.S. efforts to deter Iran and North Korea from their apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons were proving unavailing. However in April 2006 Iran announced that it had enriched a small amount of uranium, a critical step toward nuclear weapons. And then In October of 2006 North Korea conducted a nuclear test. U.S. Polices in Iraq were widely seen as the primary factor in the democrats recapture control of both the houses of congress for the first time in bush’s presidency. On January the 10 bush had a nationwide address to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq to try to suppress the sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere.
Susan Jones
Blog 5
Does Cuba Threaten the U.S?
In 1991, the Soviet Union’s demise ended the Cold War and they also ended the alliance with nuclear-armed adversary of the United States. Today, Cuba is considered a threat and they have earned a place of the “state sponsors of terrorism” on the United States government list. They are on the list, because of the close relationship that they have with Iran and North Korea. In 2002, Bush stated that Cuban transfers of biomedical research and technology to other countries. This could be aimed at helping terrorist’s states to develop warfare capabilities. The United States believe that Cuba’s biological warfare (BW) could be used to support the programs in other states. In 1998, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported that at the present time Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States or to any other countries in the region. There is nothing that indicates that the United States government treats Cuba as a high-priority danger.
I believe that no matter what happened in recent years, the United States should just give Cuba a break. If there is no reported activity going on along the side of terrorism, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the United States should let their problem go until there is a little bit of a sign of Cuba doing something with terrorism….
Is torture ever justified?
Many people believe that torture is justified. However, there are also many people that torture is "cruel and unusual punishment" and they believe that other measures can be take without having sort to abuse.
Torture proponent, Mirko Bagaric, believes "Life-saving torture is not cruel." Just like the oppenents of tortune, proponents believe torture is bad but the killing innocent people is far worse. However, propoents of torture as admitted that a "slippery slope" exists and that torture can lead to extremism.
Torture opponent, Sune Segal, believes "Taking the greater good approach to torture is intellectually and morally bankrupt." Segal states several reasons why tortune is not justified but it all circles around the fact that torture is never foolproof. By refraining from tortune the souls the detainees and the detainers can remain intact.
I'm neutral on the idea of because there are times when torture is justified and there are times when torture is never justified. In the case of a rapist or a child molester, I not only believe in mandatory prison sentence for the offender but I also believe in mandatory sterilization. I state my position on mandatory sterlization for all sex offenders because studies proven that violent offenders generally remain violent. However, cutting a person's hand off all because they got caught stealing food to feed their family, many Islamic Countries practice this form of punishment, is never justified because instilling a disability does nothing to help feed this person and their families.
Is Fair Trade Monitoring Adequate?
Page 421
Financial Times uncovers problems in Peru
The Fair Trade Labeling Organizations International, also known as FLO, was formed to enhance a fair price as well as social and environmental standards in areas related to the production of a wide variety of goods. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries that are traded to developed countries. These countries trade items such as handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit and many other products.
During an investigation of Peruvian farms, a Financial Times reporter revealed that four out of five fair trade certified farms paid summer employees less than minimum wages. This is a cruel and inhumane practice that should not be allowed or tolerated to happen in any country.
Fair trade's strategic intent is to deliberately work with marginalized producers and workers in order to help them move from a position of vulnerability to security and economic self-sufficiency. It also aims at empowering them to become stakeholders in their own organizations and actively play a wider role in the global arena to achieve greater equity in international trade.
Many people misconstrue the fair trade concept. A lot of people believe that fair trade is about paying developed world wages in the developing world. The reality is fair wages are determined by the amount of time, skill, and effort involved in production, minimum and cost of living wages in the local context and the purchasing power in a community or area. Wages are determined independently from North America wage structures and are designed to provide fair compensation based on the true cost of production.
On many occasions, many undercover fair trade prospects revealed that Peruvians often sell many of their prestige products for a lot less than what it cost to produce or manufacture it. A continued path of this magnitude will only put the Peruvian small farms in a deeper, much tougher deficit. So therefore, to maximize the country's fair trade power, organizations such as FLO and a host of others should continue to monitor the retail and production cost of less fortunate countries so that globalized trading will continue to flourish.
Pg. 314-315
Fighting Afghanistan’s Narco Trade
Taliban uses drug profits to finance insurgency
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they used a simple tactic to eradicate the country’s opium poppy crop; they told the villagers “don’t grow poppy cause if we sit it, we will hang you.” Not surprisingly, between 1999 to 2001, the amount of land dedicated to growing poppies decreased. By 2005, poppy crop reached record levels and by 2007 should hit a record high for the third year in a row. The Taliban insurgents are no longer opposed to poppy production mainly because they profit about a third of the money’s to buy recruits, weapons, and bombs. Afghanistan today is now producing more than ninety percent of the world’s opium, which is turned into heroin. Thirty six percent of the country’s gross domestic product last year came from the $2.8 billion in illicit revenue- which goes into the pockets of warlords, traffickers and some governmental officials. The poppy crop has become the primary source of income for millions of rural Afghans. In Taliban controlled areas, poppy farmers and drug traffickers pay a “tax” to insurgents for protection. The smugglers who sneak the drugs out of Afghanistan return with weapons and bombs for the Taliban. Until recently, the U.S. military in Afghanistan refused to get involved in poppy eradication but, the U.S. military now provides logistical support for drug eradication but still do not carry out operations. The NATO’s role is “to establish security throughout the country… not to dilute its focus in eradication and interdiction missions.” What’s the solution? Some believe that if the western governments were to buy the entire poppy crop, it would then employ Afghan farmers while keeping the drugs off the world market. An international security and development policy group called The Senlis Council, advocates legalizing the poppy crop and using it to produce medicines like morphine. According to a U.N. report, it will take 20 years to clean up the drug trade in Afghanistan.
Drugs are such a big part of our society today, whether it be legal or illegal drugs. Many people are dependent on them, but not always for medical reasons. I don’t believe any drug should be legalized unless it has a usefulness in the medical field. Sure everyone says that marijuana is a plant and it’s all natural and it doesn’t hurt anyone, but the fact is that I can hurt people. It can hurt yourself the people you love and innocent people if you are driving while high. I learned from experience that I cannot drive while high because I have almost crashed twice. I’ve learned my lesson and I changed my ways, especially now that I am a mother. I don’t want my daughter to get up in a bad crowd, like her father did, and waste part of her life. I’m trying to keep her as far from all of that as possible. I know she will want to experiment and that is fine I just don’t want it to take control of her life. Life is short and we need to make the best out of it but I don’t think being so messed up to where you can’t remember it is the way to go.
Alicia Evans
Journal 5
Inside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty pp 60-61
The article I did blog 5 on was an article dealing with the “have” and the “have-nots.” The UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was basically a deal between the nuclear-weapon states (the haves) and the non-nuclear-weapon states (the have-nots) to determine three goals. The first of the three is to prohibit new nuclear weapons programs. The second of the three is to encourage civilian nuclear energy development. The third is to encourage nuclear-weapon states to reduce their arsenals to zero or close to it. It was first opened for signature on July 1st, 1968 and was enforced March 5, 1970. So far, it has been approved by 188 sovereign states including the original five “haves.” These original five are the United States, the country formerly known as the Soviet Union, Britain, China, and France. Pakistan and India (both have nuclear weapons) and Israel, a state that has been known to have nuclear weapons, they just won’t admit it publicly. None of these countries will sign this treaty. Iran was one of the original signers. North Korea signed in 1985, but withdrew and they are the only country to do so.
“In Article I of the agreement the haves undertook not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or nuclear other explosive nuclear devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly, or to help the non-weapon states to acquire such weapons.” In Article II the “have-nots” contracted not to receive the transfer for all of the aforementioned and not to manufacture such weapons either. Article IV gives the right to countries that have signed to develop, research, produce, and use nuclear energy for “peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.” Originally treaties run for 25 years, as in this one. In 1995, this treaty was extended indefinitely.
This is the best kind of treaty, keeping people from having weapons of mass destruction circulating and posing the threat of obliteration.
I read World PeaceKeeping Pg 77-80. This section spoke about the way the United Nations is using or not using peace keeping forces. When Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon he addressed the guest at the Holocaust Commemoration he stated that was focusing on the situations in many parts of Africa. Many of the survivors of the Holocaust are concerned that the United Nations are not doing enough to stop the mass killings and the brutality that is happening in Darfur and several other countries in Africa. The United Nations say that they do not have the man power or the authority to “go in shooting” the United Nations are a peace keeping force not an invasion or preemptive strike force. The peace keeping of the United Nation’s forces are made up of men and women from member counties. Also most of it’s equipment is also from member countries with little or no stock piles of supplies. At a time where the United Nations is spread thin all over the world, forces and equipment are needed even more than ever.
I believe that the United Nations should remain a peace keeping force but should be allowed to have and train its own troops. Peace keeping I think is a very different role than regular military. Members of the peace keeping force should be well trained and well paid. Recently there has been reports of UN peace keepers taking advantage of the improvised people that they are there to protect. Member countries should volunteer members of their own militaries to support the efforts of the United Nations. With some parts of the world in complete turmoil the nations that have the resource to help should. I do not believe that the United Nations should have its own army that would be able to act in any interest of the UN.
Post a Comment