American troops are being sent overseas to maintain peace in a nation involved in a civil war. Whether the peace troops should or should not be sent overseas, they are being sent overseas. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of American troops to make peace in a country that is at Civil war. A civil war is a war fought within a nation between that nations people. By sending peace troops to East Timor the United States is now becoming involved in this nations war. This could cause the United States to go to war.
The arrival of multinational troops could bring more violence, destruction, and chaos to East Timor. On the other hand it could also bring protection to the many people who have fled the violence from the Indonesian Militia. Force should not have to be used to make or keep peace in any country; therefore it is not necessary for American troops to have to risk there lives trying to make peace in a country that won’t make peace until they get what they want, INDEPENDENCE. Sending troops into Dili, East Timor may help persuade the people to make peace, but it is not necessary to send all of those troops. Just a few mediators would be sufficient to help make peace. If the nations at battle would just talk they might be able to negotiate a peace treaty and there would be cooperation without more violence.
American troops would not be exposed to the violence either.The United States is a country known for helping other countries in there time of need, and the United States always plays a big role in every country, whatever the situation may be. East Timor is fighting for there independence. The United States should not send more troops to help the Dili militia fight, but send trained people who know how to persuade people to make peace. Then the United States would be setting a good example by not using violence, and would still be protecting the people.
The role of the United States is very important, and the United States has quite an image to keep up. Sometimes the United States does not know what the right decision is, and until they try one of there choices they will not know what the right or wrong decision is. It is not the United States responsibility to make peace in a country at civil war.
Should the U.S. End Overseas Military Operations? The U.S. has been sending troops to overseas countries to aid the needy, and taking certain measures to try to keep our country safe. We want to help the innocent, care for the civilians, and want them to be free. We help other countries so that maybe one day they can stand on their own! Power is everything.
Susan Brewer brilliantly illustrates the historical facts of American government propagating violence. Scrutinizing the Philippine War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War the reader discovers an eerily Orwellian government manipulating her citizens instead of educating them. Brewer states, a "propaganda campaign seeks to disguise a paradoxical message: war is not a time for citizens to have an informed debate and make up their own minds even as they fight in the name of freedom to do just that." pg. 7 The Presidents of the United States and their administrations use propaganda, generation, after generation to enter into foreign wars for profit by manipulating the truth, which it is unnecessary for our government to do to her people.
There is always that one person that stirs the pot in a situation that could have been solved rather quickly without them interfering. This is exactly what happened in Syria. The Syrian Civil War began when a peaceful protest when a group of teenagers who were writing anti-government graffiti on a wall. Syrian people called on their president who instead of making democratic reforms, acted in extreme violence against unarmed civilians. More than a quarter of a million people in Syria have been killed and over 10 million have been forced out of their homes. The Assad regime continues to suppress their citizens and they have begun using chemical bombs to kill thousands of Syrians and many even
The United States launched an operation known as Operation Desert Shield, also known as the Persian Gulf War, in August of 1990 in response to Saddam Hussein’s order to the Iraqi forces to take over Kuwait. President George Herbert Walker Bush made the decision to send American troops to Saudi Arabia to form an international coalition that would eventually turn into an operation known as Operation Desert Storm. The United States Army had not witnessed an event of such international and Homefront importation since the Cold War.
A momentous decision would soon follow. On July 1965 175,000 U.S combat troops were to be sent by the end of the year to defend South Vietnam, and again, by the years end in 1966 another 200, 000 to be sent, understanding the likelihood of the wars coming to an end was slim to none, however, the fundamental logic expressed throughout was that Laos is the present Key to the entire area of South East Asia.
“History repeats itself”, is a commonly used phrase and it is one that can be found to hold true in many situations. Throughout history there have been many incidents in which mass murder has occurred. A modern day example of mass murder in a conflict that is ongoing is the genocides occurring in Darfur, Sudan. The corrupt government in the country supports a group called the Janjaweed, which is the militia group that is mainly responsible for the large number of Darfur residents that have been murdered, raped, or displaced (1). Although the exact number is not known, most sources estimate around 400,000 people have died and another 2,500,000 have been displaced (1). The conflict started in 2003 and although it is not as severe as it has been in past years the issue still exists and the people of Darfur are still experiencing murder and suffering. The conflict in Darfur has been a topic of discussion for many nations, including the United States. The issue arises of whether or not larger nations, who have more power, should aid in the effort to stop the Darfur genocide. Some believe very strongly that the United States has an obligation to step up and help this country control a largely unethical situation. Others take the opposite argument and have reasons to believe the interests of the United States would be best served elsewhere. The situation is more complex than it initially seems and many factors must be analyzed when considering if the United States is obligated to intervene. At the same time, a conflict of this severity and size cannot be easily contained by a small and struggling nation and sometimes a bigger nation is needed to help with a conflict of this magnitude. Being a world power, the United States has the resour...
In some cases this intervention in other countries could cause the situation to become far worse. In Darfur two rebel movements took up arms against the Sudanese government over a lack of protection from invading nomads and the marginalization of the area. “Saddam responded to the domestic uprisings with extreme brutality, killing perhaps 20,000 Kurds and 30,000-60,000 Shiites, many of them civilians” (Valentino). An intervention of Saddam’s brutality was attempted and after 100 hours the US withdrew forces. The intervention was entirely unsuccessful, even with foreign aid. And in retribution Saddam brutally killed tens of thousands of people, many of which were
Not only is it a form of governmental injustice but also a violation of human rights. If there isn’t a change in the rate of violence, the poverty rate will never decrease. Both civil wars had a huge impact on the poverty and violence rate due to the fact that the peace agreements tried to change everything from one day to another. Both countries had a violent political history, which led to half of there population being poor. the United States is to blame for all the that has happened in Central America. Many had to witness traumatic events but through the midst of it all find hope. Some died spreading awareness, while others were forced to become a soldier without a choice. As some killed, as others had no choice but to kill in order to save themselves. Poverty meant not always having the required utensils in order to survive. Having fresh water to drink without being in fear that the water will kill you. To having a simple iron to iron your school uniform when it gets wet. Men and women being violently abused, raped, harassed. All this can change with an increase in jobs. A decrease in violence means a decrease in poverty. Both countries are signed to a peace agreement which is an agreement to human
On September 11, 2001, our country was hit with enormous devastation, just after eight o’clock a.m. the first of the twin towers was struck by a suicide pilot, the second was struck slightly later. The towers fell just after ten o’clock a.m., devastating the entire country, and ruining the lives of many. A plane also hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and another in rural Pennsylvania causing just as much grief. The U.S. is still in mourning, but standing tall, more Americans showed their American pride in the following months than ever before. In the months to come the only thing that was on the minds of millions was: Should we go to war? War is necessary for the survival of our country. Going to war with Iraq is a fight against terrorism. Many people believed that going to war with Iraq is unjust. Some believe that there are other ways in looking at the situation.
For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq. This proposal met opposition from council members Russia, China, and France. They thought that the U.S. proposal was too aggressive and that the U.S. should not act alone without U.N. approval. For weeks they refused to believe that the only way to make Iraq disarm is through the threat of force and the fear of being wiped out.
The United States should have intervened, and without a doubt would have been able to stop the genocide. The United States military had the power to be in country and neutralize the threat of the untrained, and not well armed people who were participating in the genocide. Even if we did not really see it coming, 100 days was an incredible amount of time to realize that something needed to be done (UNMICT, n.d.). The United States could have stopped the genocide and had troops in place for security. Why didn’t we? Is it because there was no economic reason too? It’s hard to believe, especially after all we have done in the Middle East that we did not do something. Not only could we have helped, but by our holding back, it most likely
The Democratic Republic of Congo has a population of 58,317,930 citizens (CIA-The World Fact book). Out of the 58,317,930 citizens 3.8 million of them have died through starvation, disease, and fighting (UNICEF). The death toll of Congo has been labeled genocide. The war in Congo drew in the armies of five other African nations. Neighboring Rwanda, Uganda, and allied Congolese rebel groups held control of the east and northeast. The government held the west. The problems of Congo lay in the United Nations hands. The UN peacekeeping force needs the help of other countries. France has prepared the way for 1,000 French troops that would lead a United Nations force to halt the violent conflict in the region (Talbot). Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain has thought of the possibility of sending troops to Congo (Talbot). One question the world asks is where the United States in this situation is. Does the United States have the responsibility to help Congo? The UN cannot sustain violence alone with the help of France. The Democrats and Republicans believe the war in Iraq has crossed out the possibility of intervention in Congo. Human-right groups believe the U.S. should send a small portion of troops to help. Helping Iraq have freedom is important, but Congo is in worse condition. If you look at the conditions in Iraq and the conditions in Congo, you will see that many more people have been lost and still will be lost in years to come. The citizens of Congo cannot afford to lose any more hospitals or schools. Lives need to be spared. Aside from the killing in Congo, women are abused and rapped. I believe the United States should intervene we can no longer watch as poor women and children suffer in their own homes. We can no longer sit around as 15 and 16-year-old boys are drafted away from their parents and family to fight (CIA-The World Fact book). Rwanda and Uganda that have substantial military power are helping and risking their own citizen’s lives. France a much closed-minded country has even recognized the major massacre going on in Congo. It is clearly understandable that the war in Iraq has taken a great toll on America but, the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo has taken much larger toll on Africa and we need to lower the stress for them.
...ce that their role is more of policing the violence rather than stopping it. They have no offensive strategy, and only attack when in self-defense. Not until 2013, the UN approved some type of offensive strategy to combat the rebels in DRC. The initial reports have showed that there was progressed made in disarming the M23 rebels. The UN needs to become more offensive, and take the battle to the rebels. The UN needs to start using drones to weaken rebel leaderships. There are some concern against a more offensive approach, for instance it will endanger more lives, and this would lead to countries being hesitant in supplying troops. However, there are lager benefits in ending the violence with an aggressive force, rather than prolonging the violence even further. The peacekeepers have not been enough to stop or even shift the violence in DRC, more needs to be done.
In the short run, UN peacekeepers can immediately and efficiently work to protect civilians as long as there are enough troop members (Joshi). In addition, the presence of UN peacekeepers tends to influence the government to assume a democratic ruling (Joshi). However, peacekeepers do not occupy a country forever, thus there must be a long-term solution for the state set accordingly for long-standing peace. Joshi’s research also shows certain post-civil war rebel groups have difficulty adjusting to democratic governing systems (Joshi). A civil war does not necessitate the need of democratic ruling nor is a democracy always successful in a state. Reliance building leads to political empowerment, hence, whether or not a democratic governing system is best suited for the state, the state is more likely to come to that conclusion themselves instead of being influenced by the peacekeepers. In the long run, preparing local communities for the shock of war and
....S. sent troops to Rwanda, U.S. troops would have died. Some would argue that it would have been worth it, however, to save thousands of more lives.