International Politics: The Truth About Issues That Affect Us Today

Sutton 2011 Campaign Officially Kicks Off

2009-08-01T16:52:00.000-04:00

November 2011. That date marks an important date in Flint’s history. A new mayor will be elected to take over and help turn Flint around for the better. Election 2011 gives Flint residents the power to speak out and take charge of the city’s future by casting our votes to chose who we feel will lead this city with honor, courage, and commitment. In the past five years, Flint has seen quite a few changes and has had more than enough Mayors. In this timeframe, all previous Mayors have stepped up to the plate, have made empty promises, and have blatantly lied to the public. These failed Mayors have neglected to set themselves apart from past Mayors and city officials.

Flint needs a Mayor who will step up to the plate, who will do exactly as they say, who will put an end to crooked government policies, who will develop a new way to lead the city efficiently, effectively, and have pride all the while. Flint needs a public servant who will step up and redefine the Office of the Mayor of Flint and who will restore credibility in city government. The task at hand is one of momentous proportion. There is nothing easy about reviving a struggling city in the midst of a national economic crisis. At a time like this, Flint needs a strong public servant who will do what he or she says, and who has the pulse of the citizens.

Today, I formally announce my intention to enter the 2011 elections for Flint Mayor. As a Flint citizen, born and raised, I have seen Flint come a long way as it battled through as the auto industry continued to abandon the city leaving thousands jobless, and putting the local economy under enormous strain and pressure. I have felt what every Flint citizen has felt, worry and disappointment in city government to handle our economic crisis responsibly. City government has failed to do all that it could to keep the city and its citizens afloat. As a concerned citizen like everyone else, I want to see a change in the management of this city, and today I announce my intention to make that change a priority. Vote for me and you vote for credible government. Vote for me you vote for change in government policy and tactics, for crime-free streets, better education, more jobs, and a beautified city overall. Remember: “It’s About Change, It’s about Community, It’s About Us!”.

I am Kayamone Sutton, and I am running for Mayor of the City of Flint, Michigan.

U.S. Strategic Foreign Policy: Weak and Unfruitful

2009-07-23T00:40:00.002-04:00

My fellow Americans, today we live in an era where both the Western and the American ways of life are being challenged. These ways of life are being challenged by terrorists organizations around the world and nation-states that are ruled by dictators or religious groups that are hell-bent on the destruction of western civilization and the United States of America. Some of these terrorist organizations and nation-states have gone so far as to call America the "Great Satan" and have sworn to deal death and destruction to America using any and all means necessary. Because of this declaration of war, the US readily and actively acknowledges this war on terror and has taken steps to fight those who emerge to oppose us. Current U.S. policy allows the U.S. to wage war and take hostile actions to destroy all who get in our way, however, we are not utilizing every weapon in our arsenal. Why is that?

Since the end of the Cold War and the break up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's, the United States has been searching for ways to adapt its current strategic military policies to conform to the transition into the new era of internation termoil, however, because of the Cold War mindset, America has been increasingly reluctant to utilize to the fullest potential, cold war weapons such as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction. During the Cold War, America waged a campaign to limit and prevent the proliferation of such weapons, however, after the Cold War, all real efforts to attain those goals were abandoned, leaving the U.S. as the only world superpower with a stickpile of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads and an unknown number of biological and chemical weapons. Today, these weapons are maintained with no real target because the U.S. has no true or set plan as to the use and deployment of such weapons in emerging situations.

In a world where the U.S. has lost significant credibility and is the major target of terrorist organizations and nations such as North Korea, Iran, and Syria, the U.S. needs to show the world that the U.S. is not the country to mess with and that the U.S. will not tolerate any aggression from any nation whose only goal and objective is the destruction of America and the American way of life. In my humble opinion, the treaties and conventions and agreements that the United States entered into prohibiting the design and construction of weapons of mass destruction as well as their open testing and battlefield use no longer pertain to the world in the Post-Cold War era. The enemies of America will not abide by any treaty or convention, nor will they use restrain if they procure weapons of mass destruction and any means to deliver such a weapon, so why should the United States? Why must we "play fair" when the rules of war that we have agreed to abide by are just going to be manipulated and used by the enemy as a way to box us in and make it hard to eliminate any and all threats and potential enemies? In this day and age, the United States cannot afford to box itself in with international laws that applied to an era where everyone actually abided by them. The very laws that we have established in the past to protect us and our way of life will also lead to our very demise.

In conclusion, the United states must abolish its current strategic foreign policies and adopt a harder stance with terrorists and our enemies. We must begin production of strategic weapons of mass destruction and we must ACTIVELY show the world that we are not afraid to use these weapons at the blink of an eye towards any nation or terrorist organization that opposes or even supports the opposition of the United States. We must act now, for if we dont, we endanger the lives of ourselves and the American way of life.

Why I Want To Become President

2008-07-18T10:57:00.000-04:00

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: these are three of the most precious and valuable basic and fundamental human rights of the human race. Each day we strive towards obtaining these rights but oftentimes we take them for granted. As a citizen of human society and the American race, I too strive to obtain these rights, but at the same time, I believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that all persons not just here in the United States have the opportunity to partake in these fundamental human rights. For this reason, I have dedicated my life to work towards making this more of a reality than it is today, and I have all intentions to do so through the office of the President of the United States.

Many people often ask why I want to become President and what I have to offer to this country. To those who ask this, my answer is peace, prosperity, a continued assurance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the opportunity for those not just in the United States, but all over the world to be able totake part and have these fundamental rights, rights that I believe all human beings were granted upon birth into this world. Since I was young, I have always wanted to see and live in a country where everyone had the opportunity to succeed, achieve their goals, and live happy and productive lives. The fact of the matter is such a dream is anything but reality. There are thousands of people around America who are poor, live in or below poverty, are homeless, go without food, and jobless. The key to leading happy lives and to fully enjoy our rights as human beings is having the ability to provide for ones self and ones family, and that means having a roof over ones head, having a job that pays enough to provide for ones self and ones family and having the ability to live comfortably without worries of going hungry, going homeless, and not being able to provide for self and family. I cannot and will not say what I will do when and if I become president because the state of America can and will change between now and then, but what I plan to do is work towards increasing the amount of jobs in America so that those who have no jobs can find jobs in America, and if needs be, provide a more effective means of giving those who are in need of jobs and lack the skills to obtain one, the education necessary to do so. I plan on reforming the health care system so that all Americans are taken care of medically because a country is not doing what it needs to take care of its people if there are those who have no choice but to go without adequate medical coverage or go with no coverage at all. I plan to reform America’s education system because our children represent the future of America and if our children lack the education necessary to succeed in today’s world highly advanced technical world, they will be unable and unwilling to obtain jobs necessary to adequately care for themselves and their families later in their lives. In addition, if we do not put more money into our children and their education, we have failed ourselves as a civilization because we are not making contributions to our nation’s progression.

Since America’s entry into World War I, ending the country’s policy of isolationism, the office of the President has become increasingly powerful as the office of the American President brings on the responsibility of leader of the free world. America, as the only remaining super power following the Cold War of the 1950’s through 1990’s, has an obligation to the world to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world to nations who lack or blatantly deny their citizens of their god given fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The United States is in a unique position in the world unlike the world has ever seen. Nations look up to us, mimic our culture, and strive to have the same rights and freedoms that we as productive Americans take for granted on a day to day basis. We have an obligation to help them realize these rights and freedoms, and we should do everything in our power to ensuring that they are able to partake in these rights and freedoms. The United States also acts as a world peacekeeper. Since World War I, we have taken hundreds of military actions aimed at keeping the peace worldwide and spreading freedom. The United States continues with that tradition today as we see in Iraq, beginning with the ousting of Iranian dictator Sadaam Hussein and the installation of an free and democratic Iraqi government who acts in accordance with the needs and wants of the Iraqi people. I believe that the United States should continue to fund these peacekeeping actions so as to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world so that those who are not fortunate to partake in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may do so and so that they too may appreciate and take these rights for granted as we Americans do.

In my struggle to become President, though I am still very far from realizing that dream, I look to those who share the same views and beliefs as me for their support and when the time comes, their vote, because though we are not of the same nationality, those who are not Americans are still our human brethren and family. Just as we would help and assist those who are part of our family, we should do so for all those who are part of the human family, because that is precisely what we are, family. We are no different from them as than they are different from us. Now, many people do not believe that I will ever become President and they have no faith that I have the ability to become president or show the qualities and abilities as our past Presidents, but let there be no mistake, while they may end up being right in the long run, and while I may fail in my goal to become President of the United States, I am not like any other person who has become President. I believe that those who represent the people of America best are best qualified to run this country. There is no constitutional requirement on how a person needs to act, how they need to think, or how rich or poor that person needs to be to become President of the United States, and so long as I have a love for my American and international brethren and want nothing but the best for them, I will continue to push to make my dream a reality. I will not be discouraged by a hand full of people who doubt me or have no interest in seeing me become President. I may be unable to become President in the long run, but one thing I am not, is lacking of courage, imagination, and persistence. I will see my dream to the end. I will continue to try to make the world around me a better place; I will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans and people around the world, even if I fall short in reaching my own goal. I WILL continue to fight for the people and there is nothing anyone can say to discourage me from doing so, whether they have faith in me or not. So long as I believe in my ability to do so, I will do just that.

In conclusion, I would just like to say thank you to those who support me in my pursuit to make a difference in the world. With continued support, I know I can succeed in seeing my goals and dreams come true, for the betterment of America and the world. To those who do not support me and who doubt me, you have every right to do so, but there is one principal I have always lived by and it was best quoted by NASA Flight Director Jean Kranz during the Apollo 13 crisis in 1969: “Failure is not an option”. I WILL succeed even if I fall short.

Intention To Run For Flint Mayor

2007-06-06T21:17:00.000-04:00

My fellow Flintstones, I would like to take this time to thank those who support me in my Endeavour to become Mayor of Flint. This has not always been my goal, and many people ask me why I want to return to a city that is on the downfall. My answer to that is simple; I wish to bring Flint back to life. Flint at one period in time was one of America’s greatest cities. It was also a regular campaign stop for Presidents and Presidential candidates. Today, the name Flint, Michigan brings thoughts of high crime rates, increasing unemployment, police corruption, and a decreasing population. Why is that? Because the leadership of the city has failed to find a solution that solves the problems. They continue to use the same methods that have been tried in the past and failed. What our city government needs is fresh new young faces with fresh new ideas, people who are honest, charismatic, who have a heart-felt care and love of our city and not money, people who are positive and want to see a positive change in the direction in which this city is going.

Many of you wonder what sets me aside from all the other Flint politicians. What sets me apart is my deep heartfelt love for the town I grew up in and the pride I have in the city’s history and what its future is capable of being. While there is no right or wrong solution to answer the city’s problems, I want to explore every single avenue there is to revive the city. I want to cut the crime rate in half within four years, I want to create new jobs for our residents by working with local businesses, offering them incentives in hopes of helping them generate more revenue and in turn creating more jobs for the people, I want to lower city taxes to put more money in the consumers pocket, re-beautify our streets, parks, and recreation centers. I want to provide more programs to help troubled teens, create more rehabilitation facilities and programs for our troubled youths behind bars, re-design the Flint School education system to be designed around the needs and wants of the children and their parents and families which is in tatters right now, using the resources we have and new ideas from students and parents. And last but certainly not least, I wish to help get the homeless off the streets and back into the work force to become productive citizens within our community and to help them make a better life for themselves, allowing them a second chance at life.

My goal is to make Flint an all-around good place once again, not to say that it isn’t now, but it is apparent that this city needs the help that current and past leaders have been denying it of, and they still continue to do so. I want to make Flint a place where people are no longer afraid to walk the streets at night and not be afraid to send their children to schools because of all the drug dealing and fights that go on within our middle schools and high schools. I want to make it a place where everyone can come outside, walk around Flint’s beautiful parks and take pride in where they are from. I want to make Flint a place where reading, writing, and learning is at averages equal to or surpassing national averages. I want to make Flint a place that encourages outsiders to want to be a part of our city, our culture, our community, and start businesses or work with businesses within the city. This is what I want for our city and I hope that you want this for your city too and actively join me as I push to make this all happen. Join me and together we can and WILL make a difference, but a difference can only be made if you make the effort to make it all reality!

Short Paper

2007-04-28T18:18:00.001-04:00

Title: Should the Scope of the UN Peace Operations be Broadened to Address International Crime, Natural Disasters, the Gross Violation of Human Rights, or Nuclear Weapons Development by States Not Party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

United Nations peacekeeping has become a routine and intricate role in international peace and conflict resolution. Since its conception in 1945 following World War II and its active peacekeeping role in 1948, the United Nations has participated in forty-six peacekeeping operations worldwide. It is believed that because of the make-up of the organization and the fact that the organization was created in the midst of the Cold War and retains its cold war setup and organization, its role in world politics today is not enough to take on and properly resolve new and emerging issues of the 21st century and the post-cold war era. As the worlds most established and efficient international body to which virtually every nation in the world is member of, the United Nations must have the ability to adapt to new global issues and conflicts in order to maintain world peace. Let’s explore how the scope of the United Nations should be increased so as to effectively handle a new global political climate, and more importantly, its role as an effective peacekeeping organization.

Since the early to mid 1990’s, individuals within the United Nations have conducted studies on how best to increase the UN’s peacekeeping ability. As it stands, the UN joint peacekeeping force is used in a passive manner. All contributing nations who “donate” forces to the peacekeeping force retain control of their own forces and direct them per directive from the UN Security Council, thus acting more as a coalition force operating under the United Nations banner. As was stated earlier, a committee was created in 1948, designed specifically for the purpose of overseeing operation of the peacekeeping force; however, it was only used once in the history of the UN. Since then, the committee (the Military Staff Committee) has remained dormant and unused, questioning the need for the committee and the articles within the United Nations Charter (Section VII) giving the committee its power to oversee military peacekeeping operations involving the UN peacekeeping force.

Per Article 47 Clause 1 of the UN Charter the role of the Military Staff Committee (heretofore named the MSC) us to “advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council’s military requirements for maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.” It is also “responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council” as further stated in Article 47 Clause 3. These two clauses grants the MSC the ability to maintain centralized control of peacekeeping operations utilizing multinational forces “donated” by member nations. A more centralized military command and control structure is essential in carrying out peacekeeping operations through a third party organization using multinational forces.

In order to effectively conduct peacekeeping operations through the use of the MSC, the United Nations Security Council would have to formally grant explicit UN Peacekeeping Forces Command and Control (C2) authority for the sole purpose of enforcing UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and decisions. The United Nations would also need to grant the MSC the inherent right to create standard operating procedures, adequate and standardized rules of engagement for peacekeeping missions, allow each country to retain control of their forces through their appointed representative within the MSC who coordinated his nation’s military efforts within the conflict with a Security Council appointed Supreme Commander who would be overall in charge of UN Peacekeeping forces. The MSC would also be responsible for developing standards for integrated training of the peacekeeping force to ensure that all forces have a standard set of tactics to employ on the battlefield, whether conducting passive “Observe and Guard” operations to enforcement operations. The responsibility to train the forces would be left to each individual nation and they would need to conform to United Nations Standards.

How would this help broaden peacekeeping operations in issues such as nuclear weapons development by non-signatory states of the Non-proliferation Treaty or gross violations of human rights? It would help because it allows the United Nations as a whole bypass the burden and unnecessary waste of time in determining which country would lead the effort in taking necessary military actions. It also sends a signal to nations in violation of international law that the international community opposes that nations actions and it would prevent individual nations from taking unilateral or bi-lateral actions that could have negative international impact. It also puts more pressure on nations in violation of international law and allows them to think twice before continuing on its path of law violating, giving credibility back to the United Nations as an effective global peacekeeping organization and force.

So to sum it up, allowing increased peacekeeping force activity by allowing the C2 to be centralized and placed in the hands of the MSC, the United Nations Security Council gives more credibility to the UN and the international community as a viable peacekeeping organization and eliminates most needs for countries to take unilateral and bilateral actions towards nations in violation of international law. It allows the international community to put unprecedented amounts of pressure on nations in violation of the law, hopefully forcing them to cease and desist before any real military actions occur. The introduction of a more active and centralized UN peacekeeping force also allows the organization to take an even greater pro-active role in issues such as human rights violations and nuclear weapon development violations even for nations not signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Sources:
iCharter of the United Nations http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html Last Accessed: 23 Mar 2007
ii“Sword and Olive Branch Proposal” Project on Defense Alternatives- Review of Selected Un Staff Reform Proposals http://www.comw.org/pda/weburevu.htm Last Accessed: 23 mar 2007

What Problems for Nuclear Deterrence does the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Create?

2007-04-28T18:14:00.000-04:00

Since the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945, the United States has steadily enforced its policies of strategic nuclear deterrence. The strategy of deterrence was vital during the Cold War Era because of the increased threats by the Soviet Union spreading communism around the world while increasing its stock of nuclear weapons. Today we live in a post cold war era where the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is no longer as prevalent as it were during the Cold War. After almost two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States retains its Cold War sentiment and strategic nuclear policies. Such policies pose grave problems in the pursuit of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The United States has maintained its Cold War strategic military strategy, making deterrence the forefront of its nuclear policies. In an ever-changing post cold war world, this policy and strategy has backfired due to the lack of an opposing world super power. Nations view the United States, the only remaining super power to emerge from the Cold War, as a nation that due to its power, take it upon itself to force its views and beliefs and way of thinking upon the world, much like the Soviet Union did during the Cold War. With every military action that is taken, the world views them as an act of “classic American imperialism”. Many nations view the unchecked, unrestricted power of the United States as a threat to their own national security and well-being. Other nations view America’s power as a pretext to build up arms, stating that if American can have as many weapons as it does and be as powerful as it is, then all other nations are justified to have equal or greater power so as to tip the balance of power in their favor.
One classic example of a nation that uses the United States’ policies of nuclear deterrence as a pretext to build its own nuclear weapons is North Korea. North Korea for years deceived the United States and the world by signing an agreement in 1991 stating that it would cease its nuclear weapons development program in exchange for goods for its citizens from the US. North Korea had no such intention to truthfully honor that agreement and continued to pursue its illegal research. When it was discovered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that North Korea was not adhering to the agreement in 1995,m it finally admitted that it had been producing weapons-grade uranium for use in nuclear weapons research. They even took it a step further a few years later in saying that it possessed at least one nuclear weapon. Years later, after the discovery of North Koreas active nuclear program, it began production of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). This new missile was named the Taep’o Dong-2 ICBM. It’s predicted range is 12,000 km. It has the capability to hit the United States, west-coast direct and was predicted to be able to strike as far as Washington D.C. On October 6, 2006, North Korea detonated an underground nuclear device, further destabilizing the global balance of power and global peace as it issued threats of war against Japan and the United States.
A second problem that proliferation of nuclear weapons creates for deterrence is that rogue nations who proliferate nuclear weapons have the capability to provide such technology and materials needed to produce nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. The biggest threat would come from the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization because of its size and sheer complex make-up, and its ability to conduct terrorist operations virtually anywhere in the world.
Nuclear deterrence is a good strategy today against nations who already have nuclear weapons as it gives aggressive nations willing to use the bomb a moment of pause before making the decision to wage all-out nuclear war, however, militarily aggressive nations who wish to develop nuclear weapons can justify the proliferation of such weapons by stating that if other nations are allowed to keep an inventory of nuclear weapons whose existence poses a threat to the national defense of their nation, are inherently justified to do everything within its power to counter all external threats and protect its citizens as it is the nations sovereign right to do so. It is the responsibility of the international community to do all in its power to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to discuss ways of eliminating such weapons, leading to the decreased need for nuclear deterrence, creating a more personal and less dangerous world. If we as a civilized race fail to do so, we so at our own peril.

Sources:
i North Korea Nuclear Weapons Program – Current Status Fas.org http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html (Accessed 01 Mar 2007)

The US Missile Defense System

2006-01-03T18:44:00.000-05:00

We live in a new day and age. A day and age where international threats are emerging or present threats are intensifying. International peace and tranquility is hanging in the balance with the possible emergence of two new nuclear states: Iran and North Korea. Efforts have been made to prevent these nations from developing nuclear weapons of mass destruction, however, it is the view of the United States that such efforts are not enough to ensure the safety and protection of its citizens. The US believes that in order to successfully protect its citizens, the introduction of weapons in space should be legal, however, the international community believes that the introduction of space-based weapons would increase the risk of an arms race beginning between current and emerging nuclear powers.

The international community, with the exception of the United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia, are opposed to the introduction of any kind of space-based weapons system because of the threat that such weapons could be used to deny the use of space from other nations of the world. The international community further believes that the introduction of weapons in space will increase the risk for the start of a regional or even global arms race, something that the world wants to avoid at all costs, however, the US has begin the construction and deployment of a multibillion dollar missile defense program that will utilize technologies that can be regarded as space-based weapons, technologies such as: anti-satellite weapon systems, which are designed to destroy satellites, space based orbital platforms and stations, etc. The problem with this missile defense program is that it violates a number of treaties and United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.

In order to get a better understanding of why this system violates a number of key international laws, we must first analyze the system and each of its major components. The US’ envisioned National Missile Defense system utilizes both land-based and space-based weapons and technologies that provide a shield against multiple enemy ballistic missiles launched from anywhere on the face of the Earth at any given time. The NMD system also utilized state of the art radar technologies to detect incoming missiles. Radar stations assigned to the task of detecting enemy ballistic missiles coming into American territory would be strategically and are currently placed throughout the United States. Before Canada pulled from the program a few weeks ago, such radar stations were slated for construction in Canada, which would have extended the missile shield into Canada. This network of radar stations is referred to as the Advanced Early Warning and Detection System. In addition to radar stations on the ground, the AEWD utilizes a system of satellites that monitor the globe twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, searching for the characteristics of a ballistic missile launch. These satellites are equipped with infrared and heat sensors that can pick up the heat signature of ballistic missiles. The job of the satellites once placed into geosynchronous orbit would be to acquire and track ballistic missiles throughout their trajectory.

The second major component, and the most important is the land-based interceptor missile, the “weapon” of the NMD system. The job of the interceptor is to intercept incoming missiles and warheads outside the Earth’s atmosphere and destroy them via direct impact. Each interceptor will have the capability to intercept and destroy up to twenty missiles, and with expansion, one hundred missiles could be intercepted. The system as a whole is designed explicitly for the defense of the United States against ballistic missile attacks.

On the other end of the viewpoints spectrum, the United States believes that a national missile defense system is crucial to maintaining its national security. In 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense, led a commission to assess threats to the US space assets from what the President calls “rogue states”. The commission states its fears that a Pearl Harbor style attack in space was very possible and nearly inevitable. It’s recommendation to the President entertained the idea of giving him the option of putting weapons in space to protect US assets.

The United States has been reviewing the idea of deploying a national missile defense system since 1993 when a Bottom-Up Review was done to select the strategy, force structure, and modernization programs for America’s defense in the post-cold war era. The US continues to claim that it should have the technologies readily available should threats from foreign nations emerge that would call for the deployment of the missile defense system. Since then, the United States has kept and improved upon the capability of deploying such a system in a couple years time, despite the ongoing testing and technology development. The US also claims that deployment of the NMD would be for defensive purposes only and repudiates any claims that the system would introduce weapons into space (place in earth-orbit).

Many scientists, including those from the Federation of American Scientists and nations around the world, believe that the deployment of the US’ envisioned National Missile Defense system would be a total violation of currently existing international laws and agreements such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (ABM) Treaty, which prohibits the deployment of such a system and all of its weapons components. The scientists alcso claim that the system could at any time, without the knowledge of the international community, deploy space-based defenses as originally envisioned in President Ronald Regan’s Strategic Defense Initiative program, which utilized an array of land, air, and space-based weapons that could be used both defensively and offensively against an enemy. The US, on the other hand, defends the legality of its defense system in saying that the main purpose of the system is to defend the US from attack from authorized and unauthorized foreign and domestic ballistic missile attacks.

The next few years will be crucial for the issue of weapons in space and the US deployment of its National Missile Defense system. The international community, and more specifically, the United Nations, will continue to speak out about the deployment of such systems and the almost inevitable introduction of weapons into outer space. The international community will continue to strengthen treaties by means of passing UN resolutions to prevent the United States and all other nations in the world from developing and deploying space-based weapons systems. The United States will continue with its deployment of the National Missile Defense system citing that its actions are justified and that such a system is imperatively needed to maintain the national security of America. This will cause many political problems, and a military crisis over this issue may ensue. It can only be the hope of the world that a peaceful solution that satisfies everyone can be reached.

Rebuttle to Argument over Whether Someone is a "Real" Man or Woman for Serving Their Country

2005-10-31T23:37:00.000-05:00

On a serious political note...if you really stop and think about it..and this isnt a biased opinion by any means..Everyone knows how much i HATE President Bush. He is the most incompotent president in this nation's history, in my own opinion. While i do not agree with the pretenses in which we actually went to war, one must stop and look at the facts. Bush was not wrong in linking Iraq with terrorism. Iraq DID in deed have links to Al-Queda and more specifically, Osama Bin Laden. They talked about it in the UN, they broadcast it on the news, its everywhere. There can be no doubt about it that Sadaam had contact with Osama. Now...even though no WMD's were found in Iraq..one has to seriously ask themselves, WHY would Iraq have nuclear scientists working for it if they were not planning on, in the future, constructing such weapons? They certainly had the technological capabilities for it. The SCUD missile systems that Iraq posessed, while a crude way of delivering a warhead, its effective and could easily be used to create and test nuclear weapons. The war in Iraq WAS necessary, though the reasons for going in are all known (oil) were wrong. Everyone has this preconceived notion that Iraq is an innocent nation. Innocent my fuckin ass....Iraq had weapons systems that the UN expressely stated that Iraq could NOT have. For years, Iraq defied the United Nations, ignored the UN sanctions, and in some cases, openly challenged the international community's authority. Iraq poses a threat to the US. Im pretty sure all of you know nothing about the attacks that Iraq carried out upon US and international troops in the No-Fly zone that was created around Iraq, which were unprovoked. The US quickly and swiftly retaliated by destroying a number of radar bases and command and control bunkers within iraq, but a war did not result. In fact, the world didnt care because it was an unprovoked attack upon US and international forces. In addition to that, people tend to forget the fact that SADAAM GASSED HIS OWN FUCKING PEOPLE!!! If hes not afraid of gassing his own people, whos to say that he wouldnt gas the US and her allies if given the perfect opportunity to. You all are so naive in thinking that the US has done a great injustice to the world by attacking Iraq for the oil. Sure Bush fucked up when he tried to cover up his real intentions, but if you really SERIOUSLY have a true grasp of international politics and study Sadaam, then and only then will you not be ignorant to the fact that Sadaam really truly DID pose a threat to the international community, though the threat was not imminenent. Sadaam's ties to Osama arent very reassuring either. I mean think about it....Iraq....a place where there is nothing but tyranny. Its the next best place to train terrorists, and if sadaam and osama were on good terms and the two of them were to team up to create a type of weapon that would kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, why in the hell should we not have invaded? Do you not agree that it would be a smart fucking thing to do to invade them to make sure that that DOESNT happen? Now, to the point I was trying to make about myself defending my country. It takes a real man (or a real woman) to VOLUNTEER himself to serve his country, his fellow country men, to protect them from all evils that lurk beyond its borders, be it from foreign nations or terrorists. You cannot sit there and say that that is not a noble thing to do, you cannot sit there and say that there are no such threats because if you do, you my friends are just plain ignorant (not directed to anyone in particular). It takes a real man or a real woman to want to put themselves in harms way...to place themselves between the people in which they serve and those who wish to harm those in which you serve to protect. If there was no one there to do that, who then would protect your ass from those who wish to cause you harm?

Now, as for war causing problems....stop bitching about it. Yes war causes problems, but if you did not realize by paying attention in world history class, war is what keeps ur ass safe..its what keeps the world stable, its what keeps things reasonably peaceful. Without war, NONE of us would be here right now. You cannot say that war is completely evil. Yes,death and carnage is one of the things that is so inhumane, but seriously, war is what makes the world go round. You think that war is not necessary....it is necessary..i guarantee you it is. Why is it necessary? Because of people such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Yamamoto, Sadaam, and various other historical figures who represent pure evil. Without war, those people would be able to subject the world to their evil. We wouldnt be alive. You're way of thinking is idealistic....well this is reality...your ideologic ideas do not pertain to reality when it comes down to war and humans and to think so is also, ignorant. So before you come at me with how war 'causes more problems than anything', take some time to sit down and study politics, psychology, and world history beginning with the beginning of man. War is why your ass is where it is right now. So what about gas prices...they will go back down when things are settled. Are gas prices more important than your life? I sure as hell would hope not, so stop bitching about gas prices and living expenses. Good DOES result from war, if good prevails. Eventually, when things die down, there will be economic benefits. If you have not noticed...after every major war...the economic benefits increase and we ALL benefit from them, so chill the fuck out and really think about how politics and war really do more GOOD than harm and just try to understand how it all works on the international level before trying to make assumptions that war causes more problems than anything. That is only the point of view of someone who is ignorant.

Thats my rant and rave for tonight. I hope it suffices....Ryan, dont take any of that personal...i havent been able to debate a good strong point like that in a while, and when you said that, it really hit a nerve Let it be made known that i do not support war, regardless of what many may think or believe. I choose to serve my country because I want to protect the people and the nation that I love. Like i said before, it takes a real man or a real woman to volunteer to protect the people that they serve if it is for a noble purpose. Seriously tell me that im not a man for wanting to protect and preserve democracy. Tell me that im not a man for wanting to put my life on the line to protect my nation and my fellow country men.

I rest my case......

Speech on the Role of Women in the Military

2005-10-23T19:59:00.000-04:00

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words represent the foundation upon which our country was created. Justice, equality, and the ability to live a free life with few hindrances from government are something that reflects the American way. We respect and admire those who give their lives to protect this foundation, both men and women alike, but we must ask ourselves, while we respect and admire these people, why are we allowing our females, the same females who belong to this country, to fight for equality when we openly defend refusing them the opportunity to obtain an equal status in the same military that defends the very foundation that this great nation was built upon? Hypocritical isn’t it? Let us examine both sides of the argument to gain a better insight of how each side of the argument thinks and reasons on this issue.

Espousers of the idea that the military should not allow females to advance in rank and duty, let alone be an active participant in the military argue that according to the numbers, there have been a steady increase in the amount of reported female rapes, sexual assaults, and harassments within military training bases, which has caused much concern to arise over whether females should be allowed to actively serve in the military. Some conservative Republicans in Congress surmise that these increases in reports vindicate an end to a gender-blind modern American military and that we should resort back to a time when we did not have women holding many positions within the military, save nurses and other medical staff.

Espousers who support a fully gender-integrated effectively argue that the numbers of reported gender related crimes is on a steady decrease. In fact, since 1988 between 1988 and 1995, the percentage of military women who reported that they had received uninvited and unwanted sexual attention from someone at work decreased from 64% to under 50%. Proponents of a fully gender-blind military also argue that the reason why there are so many reports of sexual misconduct within the military is because of the fact that there just aren’t enough women in the military at all ranks. Unless females are treated as equals like men, the men will continue to mistreat our females, however, there is one obstacle that prevents a full integration of women in the military...Congress. That’s right, our very own Congress refuses to fully gender integrate the military. Their excuse? Women cannot match the level of physical and mental pressure that their male counterparts can. They believe that females are more liable to crack under pressure and are prone to letting their judgment impair the decisions they make out on the battlefield and in other situations.

This kind of thinking is condescending, demeaning, and goes against the very principles that form the foundation that this nation was built upon. If we as Americans wish to progress as a people, we MUST allow ourselves to stop discriminating against those of different races and of the opposite sex. If we wish for our military to be even stronger than it already is, we must allow all those who are qualified to be leaders to step up regardless of skin color and/or race. We must not allow ourselves to fall back into a period of discrimination. For we have seen the effects of discrimination that has for over the two centuries of this county’s existence, divided us and caused us to go into a bloody civil war. We owe it to our ancestors, we owe it to our females, and we owe it to all those who gave their lives so that all Americans could live to be equal regardless of age, gender, or race, to stop the discrimination, because if we allow ourselves to permit discrimination against a single group of people, we are justifying discrimination against any group of people. If we allow our women to be discriminated against in the military, a lot more is at stake than most may realize. This issue, the issue of discrimination of a minority, if left unchecked and unsolved, will be the issue that tears America apart. Let us remember, we are our own enemies. Only we have the ability to destroy ourselves and we cannot permit this to happen.

Speech on the US and Its Role In Nuclear Disarmament

2005-10-23T19:57:00.000-04:00

Mr. Weiss, distinguished students, my fellow American colleagues, I come before you today to address an issue of prodigious international importance, nuclear proliferation and the United States’ role in global disarmament of these weapons of mass destruction. This country and its new generation of Americans are faced with a fundamental question: should the United States of America permit the proliferation of its own nuclear weapons, and if so, how should this generation of American leaders combat the political backlash of such a decision?

Since the beginning of the Cold War, the United States has regarded nuclear weapons as an intricate part of its foreign policy. During that era, we faced an enemy which threatened the stability of the world. The United States responded to that threat by increasing its nuclear arsenal at an alarming rate. In the 90's, that threat nearly disappeared, spurred by the downfall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the Soviet Union, which left America with thousands of nuclear weapons and as the only world super power. Because of this, nations such as China, Iran, and North Korea set out to begin or increase production of nuclear weapons in fear that the United States would use them against any potential enemies. Some of these nations justified the research and development of these weapons by saying that they have a right to protect themselves from the United States and any other aggressor that threatens them with nuclear warfare. Some argue that failure to flaunt or show-off its nuclear weapons, whether it be on a small scale or large, should be a tactic to deter nations from attacking the United States and its interests abroad, yet the question remains, how would the international community act if the US began the active proliferation of its nuclear weapons?

Advocates against the US proliferation of nuclear weapons argue that while it might seem practical to deploy such weapons that may only be a fraction of the size of strategic nuclear weapons, the results from such detonations would be catastrophic to both the environment and to the area affected by the strike and would prompt nuclear capable nations to respond with their own nuclear weapons. They also believe that because of the fact that the United States would develop nuclear weapons, whether they are low-yield or high, other nations are inherently justified in creating their own nuclear weapons to deter the United States from waging an unrestricted low-yield nuclear war against a nation that has little or no nuclear capabilities. In their argument, they are absolutely correct.

Congress has become a strong proponent in the fight against the US’ proliferation of nuclear weapons. Such is true and underscored by a speech given by Senator Douglas Roche on May 13, 2004 when speaking about the role of the US in nuclear disarmament. He explicitly stated “A March 2004 Report to Congress reveals that the U.S. is employing a double standard concerning compliance with the NPT. Whereas the U.S. wants to move forward into a new generation of nuclear weaponry, it adamantly rejects the attempt of any other state to acquire any sort of nuclear weapon. The U.S. clearly wants to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons; of that there can be no doubt. But it does not want to be questioned on what it regards as its right to maintain enormous stocks (despite numerical reductions) and to keep nuclear weapons as a cornerstone of its military doctrine.” What is the world’s reaction to the US’ double standard towards nuclear disarmament? The world criticizes America openly. Nuclear and non-nuclear nations alike believe if the United States justifies having nuclear weapons, regardless of the progress they are making in disarmament, even though the appearance of disarming is cosmetic, that other nations have the same right to develop and use nuclear weapons in the same exact manner that the US claims to have the divine right to do. My fellow Americans, THIS is American rhetoric and hypocrisy at its best!

What do advocates for the development and use of America’s nuclear weapons think? They believe that the United States has a sovereign right to maintain and use its nuclear weapons based on the threat that looms with terrorism and rogue nation-states. They believe that the United States has a right to force or even strong-arm nations into refraining from the development and use of nuclear weapons and to make them disarm because they pose a threat to the security of the superior American nation. As objective as this speech may be, I must stop and ask you all a question...just how dangerous is this way of thinking? Better yet, how much of a hypocrite can a person be to not think that other nations will not respond to America’s open and deliberate threat of using nuclear weapons on a conventional basis? Apparently our government is full of these hypocrites because in 2003, the Defense Authorization bill and the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the 2004 fiscal year, passed by Congress and signed into law on January 7, 2003, gave the United States the authorization to resume construction of nuclear weapons, an ability that America has not had in over 30 years. To nations around the globe, this signals a major shift in United States foreign policy because the nuclear devices being produced would be used on a more conventional level. In addition, both Senate Resolution 76, presented on March 5, 2003, and House Resolution 291, presented on July 19, 2003, detail what would happen if the US were to proliferate such weapons. House Resolution 291 specifically states three points: "1) the policies and programs of the United States are counter productive because our reliance on nuclear weapons encourages other states to acquire them, increasing the liklihood that nuclear weapons would be created and used, 2) such policies and programs are dangerous because the assertion of the US' right to engage in preventive war encourages other states to assert the same right, and 3) such policies and programs are immoral because they place a threat of mass destruction, and the assertion of a right to initiate war at the core of United States foreign policy." The United States must set an example. We must take a lead in the global destruction of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Taking the lead in this endeavour also means complying with our own demands that are being imposed upon all other nations of the world.
As a new generation, we must think deeply about the cause and effects of if the United States were to actively produce weapons of mass destruction, whether they are for conventional or strategic use. Since the current US government has enabled the US military to engage in the research, development, and testing of new nuclear weapons by appropriating funds and pulling out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on December 13, 2001, the United States stands at a crossroads and it is our generation’s responsibility to ensure that the United States contiues to vie for global nuclear disarmament while abiding by the same international laws and treaties that we helped for so many decades, shape, for if we don’t, the crediblity of the United States will begin to waver and allied and international support in the global disarmament of nuclear weapons will be lost, creating an even greater threat to the existence of all humankind. Thank you and God bless.

Speech on the Global Disarmament of Nuclear Weapons

2005-08-22T17:49:00.000-04:00

Mr. President, members of Congress, my fellow Americans, I come before you today to address an issue of great international importance, nuclear proliferation and the United States role in global disarmament of these weapons of mass destruction. Since the beginning of the Cold War, the United States has regarded nuclear weapons as an intricate part of its foreign policy. During that era, we faced an enemy which threatened the stability of the world. The United States responded to that threat by increasing its nuclear arsenal at an alarming rate. In the 90's, that threat nearly disappeared, spurred by the downfall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the Soviet Union, which left America with thousands of nuclear weapons and as the only world super power. Because of this, nations such as China, Iran, and North Korea set out to begin or increase production of nuclear weapons in fear that the United States would use them against any potential enemies. Some of these nations justified the research and development of these weapons by saying that they have a right to protect themselves from the United States and any other aggressor that threatens them with nuclear warfare.

In 2003, the Defense Authorization bill and the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the 2004 fiscal year, passed by Congress and signed into law on January 7, 2003, gave the United States the authorization to resume construction of nuclear weapons, and ability that America has not had in over 20 years. To nations around the globe, this signals a major shift in United States foreign policy because the nuclear devices being produced would be used on a more conventional level. In addition, both senate Resolution 76, presented on March 5, 2003, and House Resolution 291, presented on July 19, 2003, detail what would happen if the US were to proliferate such weapons. House Resolution 291 specifically states three points: "1) the policies and programs of the United States are counter productive because our reliance on nuclear weapons encourages other states to acquire them, increasing the liklihood that nuclear weapons would be created and used, 2) such policies and programs are dangerous because the assertion of the US' right to engage in preventive war encourages other states to assert the same right, and 3) such policies and programs are immoral because they place a threat of mass destruction, and the assertion of a right to initiate war at the core of United States foreign policy." The United States must set an example. We must take a lead in the global destruction of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Taking the lead in this endeavour also means complying with our own demands that are being imposed upon all other nations of the world.

I support the President's proposals presented to the U.S. Defense University, which makes it difficult for nations to obtain nuclear materials, and to use for making nuclear weapons of mass destruction, however, this is not enough. I recognise President Bush's efforts to deter nations from developing programs and weapons, however, the method in which he is carrying it out is not the right way of going about it. As I sometimes jokingly tell prople, if I get pushed, you better believe that im going to push back even harder. The same thing holds true for the United States and nations actively pursuing nuclear weapon, which is why I have developed an 8-point plan that would utilize strategies from the Cold War and now. I believe that in order for America to be even remotely successful in its goal of peaceful global disarmament of not just nuclear weapons, but chemical and biological weapons as well, the following steps need to be taken:

1) The United States must immediately, and as a first step, halt all research and development of nuclear weapons, whether they are for strategic or conventional use

2) The US must call for international talks on the permanent disarmament of nuclear weapons and ways to prevent the proliferation of such weapons

3) To show America's earnest effrot towards its own dismantling of its nuclear stockpile, the US must agree to unrestricted access by the IAEA and/or andy other WMD Dismantling Minitor group or organization to monitor and/or supervise the dismantling of its nuclear weapons

4) More effort must be made to assist other nations who are unable to fully afford the cost of dismantling its nuclear weapons and expunging its nuclear weapons programs

5) The US must help develop ways to monitor all nuclear capable nations to ensure that the proliferation of such weapons does not occur

6) The United States must revise its foreign policy and take a less aggressive approach towards rogue nations who are seeking or who already posses weapons of mass destruction to ease tensions so that those nations feel less intimidated and pressured and feel more inclined to cooperate with not only us, but the international community as a whole

These steps will ensure that America takes the lead in global disarmament, serving as an example to others. With the changing international political climate, the US must show a full willingness to comply and follow its own rules, laws, and policies, for if it fails to do so, the international community will fail to comply, making it that much harder to obtain the goal of global disarmament.

The threat of nuclear proliferation looms all around us and poses a threat to our national security and global security, alike. Nuclear weapons and their proliferation world-wide enable rebel factions and even terrorist organizations a chance to obtain such devices if found in the hands of a rogue nation such as Iraq, Iran, or Pakistan. The only way to ensure our safety and the safety of the world is if we rid the world of these weapons of mass destruction, for if we dont, we are just as guilty as those nations we allow to proliferate these weapons. It is imperative to human survival, human existence, that the world unites to rid our earth of these horrific death-causing weapons.

Flint ACLU "Rock On, Rock Off" Essay Contest Entry - "Rock On!"

2005-05-14T18:20:00.000-04:00

Freedom of speech, an ideal that has been the centerpiece of American democracy is one of the most argued over rights in modern times. The American constitution, solidified by the Bill of Rights, states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”, However, more and more we see that our rights and freedoms are being challenged and consolidated all over the country, in all levels of government from federal to local. Recently, the attack upon our freedom of speech has come to the city of Flint, and now it is time for us to speak out about it.

The famous rock, located on the corner of 12th street and Hammerberg road in Flint, has for over three decades stood as a pinnacle of the American principle of freedom of speech as a public forum. Many would say that it us silly to complain and fight over the right to write on a slab of concrete, however, we are not just fighting for the right to write on a rock. We are fighting for the principle behind the right to do so. We are fighting for much more than the freedom of free speech. We are fighting for the freedom of self-expression. We are fighting for the ideals and principles that this great nation was built upon, and that so many lives have been lost defending. We are fighting for our culture, our way of life, and what makes us who we are and the very things that define us as a unified people, unified Americans. We are fighting because something so small has the power and ability to set a dangerous precedent that will spread like wildfire, destroying the very ideas and governing principles that our great nation, the United States of America, was built upon. We are fighting against the destruction of the very heart of our nation, for if our freedom of speech and our freedom to express ourselves was taken away, everything that we as Americans, governed by the constitution of the United States of America that was created by our forefathers, have fought and died for would have been done in vein.

Many people are outraged over the banning of the right to paint on ‘The Rock’. The rock provides the public with an outlet for freedom of expression in a fashion that is non-violent, non-disruptive, creative, and original. Contrary to many people’s belief, this issue will set a precedent that would allow government on all levels to begin curbing our freedom of speech and expression by limiting the available public forums available to us to exercise such freedoms. We have seen in the past the American freedom of speech exercised right here in the city of Flint on a massive level. Just this past year, in the month of May, Flint was the site of the ‘Marijuana March’, which was a protest to legalize marijuana, an addictive and dangerous drug. Did the Mayor or any government institution move to stop the people from marching downtown? No! Why should there be a ban on using a rock to express love, sorrow, or discontent in a peaceful way when we are allowing people to march and assemble for the purpose of pressing city and government leaders to legalize an illegal drug? Which is more disruptive and disturbing? The answer is not hard to figure out. Are both the ‘Marijuana March’ protesters and people who write on ‘The Rock’ not utilizing and taking full advantage of their freedom of speech and expression granted to them by the American constitution? Yes they are, and to ignore that fact would be an act of sheer disregard for the constitution, the ideals and principles that this nation was founded upon, and disregard for the very things that our brave husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, children, and friends have served their country and made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of these ideals, principles, and our way of life, the American way of life, have fought and died for.

We must not allow government to act and capitalize upon a dangerous precedent set by the banning of the freedom of speech and expression by utilizing a slab of concrete to peacefully express our feelings and emotions. It is our right, it is our duty as American citizens, governed by the constitution of the United States of America, the same constitution that granted and guaranteed us those rights, to protest any and all laws that attempt to abolish those rights. For it says in the Declaration of the Independence that it is the right and duty of the American people to alter or abolish an American government that does not act according to the wishes of the American people who are governed by the highest law of the land, the constitution. We speak out now in protest of all such laws that are hinder our God and constitution given unalienable rights for if we don’t, we fail as Americans to defend the very things that define who and what we are. We must not let this happen. Now is the time to act!

Bush and the No Child Left Behind Act

2005-04-30T17:20:00.000-04:00

In 2002, President Bush passed the “No Child Left Behind Act”. This act laid out a plan to better educate America’s children, but if you have ever listened to him give a speech, you can tell that he was a child that was left behind. The legislature passed by both the Senate and House of Representatives states that it’s goal is to help our children to become more literate and educated. It’s a shame that it wasn’t passed 40 years ago, because Bush shows a primitive level of literacy compared to today’s kindergarten and elementary school students. From his horribly bad grammar usage to his stuttering and inability to pronounce simple words and phrases such as successful and allies, Bush is by far one of America’s funniest literacy-challenged Presidents in this country’s history.

The “No Child Left Behind Act” was designed for the purpose of ensuring that all children who are enrolled in school from kindergarten to 12th grade are properly educated and that the learning environments are equal, however, it’s quite interesting how none of America’s learning environments provide equal opportunities for students to learn. Schools that are located in urban cities and areas are not as ‘nice’ as those that are located in areas and school districts that have lots of money flowing into them by upper middle class and upper class tax payers. Often times, when you compare schools located in wealthy cities and towns with schools located in urban cities, one would see that schools in urban areas are more run-down, more dilapidated, and less appealing to schools in wealthy areas and cities. Believe it or not but learning environments contribute a lot to the amount of education the students receive. Students that attend nice looking schools that are nicely maintained and provide after-school programs and activities that interest and engage the students take more pride in their school and their education and are also more inclined to do better and excel in school, putting them in a much better position to receive a higher education.

In order to obtain equalized educational environments where students across the country receive the same top-quality education, billions of dollars would need to be allocated just towards the rejuvenation and beautification of each and every school across the country that is deemed not up to standard. Now, it’s a known fact that the U.S. has a $400 billion budget deficit. Well since Bush and Congress cut funding for education and put a majority of it towards defense, where will the money come from to help fund this project? Duh, it’s going to come from our pockets. That’s right, its time for another increase in taxes. Who’s going to get hit with this round of friendly tax increases? Certainly you don’t think the hard working, backbreaking, 5% of Americans that are more than filthy rich that are struggling to get by on life with just their 5 cars, all of which cost more than $100,000, their numerous multimillion dollar mansions located in exotic places such as on islands and in other countries, and their Swiss bank accounts that have millions and even billions of dollars worth of spending money in them, do you? Oh no! It wouldn’t be fair to tax them more because it wouldn’t be fair to them since they need all of their money and material possessions to survive. Instead, I have an idea. Lets increase taxes for the lazy middle and lower class citizens who aren’t working, who are on welfare, and who are unable to support their families. I mean, come on. Lets face it. Who needs to support their families? They aren’t important anyway. So what if inflation increases, causing the cost of food and groceries to skyrocket. So what if they can’t afford America’s rising cost of living. Who cares if they can’t get a higher-level education so that they can get jobs? Hell, there aren’t any jobs to give away anyway! Who cares if because of all this, they are forced into homelessness? You and I certainly don’t care because we’re part of the middle class, do we? Heck no! I want to be broke all the time. Hey! Maybe if they increase taxes even more, we would go homeless because we’re dirt broke. That would be great. Oh and you know what? We haven’t even increased the taxes enough to fund the educational programs, additional teacher schooling, and to pay for new textbooks, computers, and learning tools. How great is that? HAH! Not in my lifetime.

The “No Child Left Behind Act” is a good idea, in theory; however, it would be unrealistically possible to ensure that no child gets left behind. Unfortunately, there would have to be a drastic overhaul of America’s educational system in order to bring in more positive results. It is commendable that school districts around the nation are changing to comply with the act, however, until America comes out of its economic deficit, a great many of America’s children will undoubtedly be left behind.

Abortion: Is It Really Moral?

2004-07-26T08:01:00.000-04:00

While I am known to many as a person with very liberal views, I take a departure from my liberalism when confronted with the issue of abortion. Over the years, my position has changed drastically from pro-choice to pro-life. I believe that you must look at this issue from a moral point of view. A popular belief is that a person is truly alive when one is born. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines life and the state of being alive as “human activity; time when something functions; animated; full of life; being in existence.” People who are pro-choice argue that a person is not deemed alive until they are born, but is a person not alive and functioning when it develops a heart and a brain? Is it not a living organism? Is it not full of life and growing into a complete human being? How can you not say that a human embryo is not alive if it has such traits? Purposefully killing a human, no matter what form it is in, is cold blooded murder and is immoral. Shame on those who support the intentional killing of human lives just because they don’t want to be responsible for their actions that may have resulted in the creation of another innocent human life.

If abortion is made legal, it would send a resonating message to our teens that they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions and that it is ok to have unprotected sex because if they were to get pregnant, all they have to do is get an abortion and not be stuck with the task of taking care of a human. We must make abortion illegal on the federal level because we must send a clear message to our teens, they must take responsibility for their actions. Don’t do the deed unless you are prepared and ready to pay the price that comes along with it. Making abortion illegal on the federal level also forces teens to use either contraceptives or condoms to prevent unwanted pregnancy. This also has an added bonus as it would reduce the number of STD’s that are transmitted each year and it would force teens to have sex responsibly or just not have sex at all.

Im sure many pro-choice people who read this editorial will say that a person cannot be told what they can or cannot do with their bodies, but abortion affects another human being. While the human organism isn’t fully developed and is inside the mother’s body, there can be no doubt about it that the organism is alive, and to say otherwise is just plain asinine and idiotic. While it functions independently from the mother, it is not dead, nor is it not full of life. There is nothing that can justify the argument that an independent functioning organism that has a brain and a heart is not alive. If it isn’t alive, then what the hell is it? So, once again I ask the question, is abortion moral? No it is not, and to say otherwise is iniquitous and immoral in itself.

Making abortion illegal will break out another argument, this time with the females. They will ask, what if they don’t want the baby because it puts a damper on their dreams and goals? Well, first of all, I say you shouldn’t have had unprotected sex in the first place if it was consensual. Getting pregnant is the price you have to pay for taking that action. That is not to say that their plans for their life ahead are in jeopardy. If they have to take care of a child, there are plenty of other sources to get money to not only take care of your child, but pay for any schooling that you may want to go after while you have a child. They come in the form of government grants and loans. I see no excuse what so ever that a pregnant or teenage mother cant go to college and be able to pay for it and continue with her life plans. The money is free and it is there, and all they have to do is find it. Get up, look, and get the money. Don’t complain to the government or anyone else about your dilemma that you caused by getting pregnant in the first place (unless you were raped, then we can be a lot more lenient).

Bill Cosby Targets African American Community: Telling The Truth Or Throwing Out Flagrant Inflammatory Insults?

2004-07-06T08:02:00.000-04:00

Well, Bill Cosby has once again stirred up a national controversy with his latest comments given in a conference on July 2, 2004 with Reverend Jessie Jackson. But were his comments really all that shocking? Not in the least. He attacked black children, and their parents for the lack of moral decency which is evident in today’s generation of African American kids. In addition to that, nearly half of African American kids are illiterate. But why is he being criticized for strongly pointing this out?

What frustrates me is the fact that he is being criticized for stating these things, stating that they simply aren’t true. Now, im no political leader but I am a first hand witness to the behavior of African Americans in general as are thousands of other American elementary, middle, and high school students and they act in the same manner as he described. Kids calling each other n----r’s and using other obscenities. Sure there are those who are successful, who want to learn and carry themselves in a manner that is respectable, admirable, and decent, but for the rest, its far from that. One thing that Mr. Cosby mentioned was the fact that black teenagers are going out and getting pregnant out of wedlock. What is so shocking about that? If you were to go into the urban areas of ANY large city, you would quickly find that there are many mothers with 4, 5, or even 6 or more children. In addition to that, you will find that almost 75% of black families are single parent families, with the mothers as the head of the household. Where are the fathers at? Getting other women pregnant, in jail, and not taking responsibility for their actions. Its sickening and its getting worse. The African American race should be ashamed of itself for allowing this to happen. Where is the pride? The respect for those who have given their lives to give us the freedoms that we have and take part in and take for granted? And where is their sense of self-pride and self-respect? Where is the morality, decency, and pride of living a life where your in and out of jail every month for most of your life, your father of bunches of kids with multiple women, with a high school education and unable to get a good job and make a good living for yourself. Just where is the sense of pride in that?

Mr. Cosby also attacked the white community for also allowing this to happen. This is not an African American problem, this is an American program, and we ALL need to get off our asses and do something to fix it. We are all Americans and we are all in this together. America is disputably the best nation in the history of all mankind, and we cant pull ourselves together and clean up our act to fix our social and cultural problems in a unified effort to make this nation better and live up to the dream and vision of all of those before us that have died to get us the freedoms and privileges that we hold dear today, not just the African American civil rights leaders, but everyone who has fought to preserve America, our way of living, our culture. If this is the way the United States is going and will continue to go for decades more, then the people who have founded this nation, who have fought to preserve this nation, and who have died battling for better civil rights for EVERY race of man in the United states, fought for a lost cause and died in vein. Lets get our act together America, before we fall victim to the very things that we have all fought to preserve.

A statement I added to the debate:

Well see, we should actually be attacking our parents generation. I mean, look at the changes im American society between the 50's and 80's. Increasing violence, sex, drug usage. I dot think its this generations fault at all. It's our parents generations fault. I will agree that American society is getting worse. (example: It was announced on MSNBC yesterday taht Macy Gray will be doing a concert completely nude in a few days or so - to raise money for a charity). We cnnot just blame out generation because we werent the ones who started the trend. Remember that the learning process starts at home, and if children arent taught not to do things or not taught how to present and carry themselves or even act in public or elsewhere, then its not that child's fault. Its the parents fault, however, it cant go without saying that our generation shouldnt be held accountable for its actions. Many teens know what they are doing, know that how they talk, walk, and act arent right. Our generation is brilliant and smart but we just dont care about the values that we should really be embracing and cherrishing.

As for the white people, they arent doing anything not just because they dont want to be labeled as a racist, but because they dont want to carry the burden of doing so, and they are also allowing the African American race and culture to self-destruct because they want to keep their superiority over all other races here in this country. Remember, racism in this country is a lot more abundent than many people think or believe it is. America is also still heavily segregated (schools are a direct representation of that, and the truth is, American schools are more segregated now, than they were ever before in American history).

Has The "Civilized" World Turned Its Back On Africa?

2004-07-06T07:27:00.000-04:00

An issue has recently crept into my mind leaving me stunned and wondering. The issue is of how the entire world including America, and the modern developed countries in Europe and in asia have practically turned its back to the issues currently affecting Africa. Now, I know some of you may be thinking that there are initiatives to help the people of Africa, to feed them, give them medical assistance, but we have been doing that for decades, and where how far have we gotten in this endeavour? Not very far. People are dying, there are still civil wars raging, people are dying on a biblical scale, you have mass genocide, and the continent is just in utter chaos.

Not too long ago, I finished reading a great book by Henry Kissenger entitled "Does America Really need a foreign policy," and basically what he did was break down issues effecting each and every region of the world, now when he began talking about Africa, he made a few comments that made me wonder, why is the world, including America, practically giving the African people the cold shoulder. Should we not be doing a lot more than we are to help these people resolve their problems, help them develop their nations so that they too can enjoy life without disease, hunger, famine, and the hardships that they have been going through for literally, centuries? Why have we not put an end to oppressive regimes that purposefully hurt the people and keep them starving and suffering as a scare tactic to get them to do what they want, and to make them acknowledge their power over them?

The United States and the nations of Europe have fought for years in various military conflicts for Freedom from oppression, and to develop and better themselves, and we try to spread our ideals and our freedoms to the rest of the world, but it seems Africa as a whole has missed out on it entirely. Why is that? Sure it will be expensive, time consuming, and full of problems, but what isnt expensive, time consuming, and problem plagued? It is the modern, devleoped, and civilized world's moral obligation to do all that we can to assist these people. To do what we are doing and to continue to give them the minimum amount of assistance is hypocritical and morally wrong. How dare we. How dare the world.

John Kerry: Will His Budget Reform Plan Work?

2004-05-22T15:18:00.000-04:00

In recent weeks, President hopeful John Kerry has released his economic and employment reform strategy that outlines what he will try to achieve once elected to office. This comprehensive 8-page plan he is calling “The most sweeping international tax reform in over four decades,” and is centered around the main idea of creating 10 million jobs here in America. But is his plan really a working strategy? In order to formulate an accurate answer, lets take a look at the plan and analyze it.

The tax plan first calls for an elimination of corporate tax breaks that will spur growing numbers of companies from shipping American jobs overseas. He also plans to lower corporate taxes by 5%, which I am guessing is a way to balance, to a certain extent, the tax breaks being given out to large companies and corporations as a way to being our jobs back to America.

Kerry’s economic tax reform plan also noted loopholes in international taxes that allow companies to make more money overseas without having to legally pay U.S. income taxes. Such loopholes include the ability to defer taxes. It is stated that corporations need not pay active foreign income tax until it brings any money it has out of the country into the U.S. Kerry ads that “if they keep money abroad, they can avoid paying U.S. tax entirely,” which is absolutely true. This in turn provides incentive for companies to keep re-investing their money abroad, and not to bring the contribute investment and growth to the American economy. Personally, I don’t believe that trying to put our efforts into lowering taxes for corporations will bring a significant amount of jobs back to the states. What he and all other politicians fail to grasp is the fact that corporations don’t want to decrease revenue. Moving jobs back to America does just that because they would have to pay their employees nearly 100 times as mush as they would if they continued to send jobs overseas to countries like India, Taiwan, and Mexico. There is no competing with that. All corporations are concerned with is getting more and more money at the expense of the American people and the American economy. They are practically destroying the American economy, which will, in the long run, destroy this nation totally.

There is a serious imbalance present in the US. As jobs leave the U.S., more and more immigrants are moving into America both legally and illegally. Kerry’s economic tax reform plan fails to produce alternatives to fight this. It is more based on the assumption that corporations would want to move jobs back to the U.S. just because they are getting a few tax breaks and making it a little harder to keep money abroad without paying taxes on it.

In retrospect, the tax reform plan is ambitious, and offers many tax breaks, tax cuts, and introduces a couple of temporary taxes that will benefit corporations and small businesses in addition to manufacturing employees. On that note, it seems that Kerry plans to try to jumpstart the economy with the manufacturing industry as he has taken a keen interest in the industry and its workers. He promises to increase U.S. productivity while creating more jobs for the manufacturing industry. He seems to be biased towards that industry, and it is apparent as he is neglecting other industries as well as currently employed Americans that would also help jumpstart the economy. His plan calls for more tax cuts, but were tax cutting the hell out of the national budget. It will create an even deeper deficit, one in which our next generation of children will be working to pay off in the next half century for years.

2004-04-09T05:27:00.000-04:00

Interview On My Political Stance, If I Were To Run For President This Year

Before I begin, i would just like to thank my close friend Echo Tunney for having me complete her interview questions, I could use this for a great essay of some sort one day. Also I hope this helped your grade a some. It was fun doing it, even though it took me an hour and a half or so to write lol. Good luck!!

1. When did you first become interested in politics?

I became interested in politics back when i was in the 5th or 6th grade, although, i wasn’t very aware of the issues, but i read up on them and watched the news a lot, which has in turn influenced the way i feel about certain issues such as taxes, U.S. foreign policy, and things of that nature.

2. How do you plan on getting involved in politics?

Right now, basically what im doing is looking to get a job as a Page, and a Page is a person (normally a student) who works as an aid for a Congressmen. If i can get a job for a congressmen as a Page, then that will be my ticket to getting to know other senators, voicing my opinion, and really being able to make a difference in the State of Michigan and maybe even the United States. If i don’t obtain a job as a Page, then I will write to senators, congressmen, and the presidential cabinet on issues that i feel strongly about, and hope to bring about someone change to this country (a plan i am going to execute regardless of if i get a job as a page or not).

3. If you were running for office in this coming election, what would your platform be?

Well a platform would consist of a number of issues and stances on those issues. Right now, the current MAJOR issues that the United States is faced with today are rising unemployment, economic recession, taxes, social security, education, national security, and foreign relations.

Rising Unemployment- The unemployment rate has skyrocketed since the beginning of President Bush’s term in office. It reached a record 7.3% (give or take one or two), the highest its ever been since the great depression of the 1920’s. This rise in unemployment is a result of corporations sending jobs overseas so that they may make more money and pay less for production. I believe that we need to bring those jobs back to America WHERE THEY BELONG by giving corporations tax breaks, lowering corporate taxes, which would in turn give the corporations no reason to send OUR jobs to other countries. This would only effect big business. In order to deal with small businesses run by ordinary people, I believe that commercial taxes should be lowered, giving business owners more money to keep their businesses running, and if businesses have enough money to continue to run, that creates a need for more employees, but ALSO to compliment this, personal taxes must be lowered as well so that businesses can actually profit which also increases the need for jobs. The more money people have, the more they will spend and demand will increase, the more they spend, the more people would be needed to take care of that demand.

Economic Recession- Again, this goes hand-in-hand with taxes and unemployment. Jobs are being shipped overseas, not only does that create less jobs here in America, it hurts the economy because the citizens don’t have the money in their pocket to positively simulate the economy and encourage growth, so it becomes stagnate and begins to recess. I believe that the government should lower taxes for middle income families, and corporations, and increase taxes on the wealthy because right now, it is set up where the rich are really the ones benefiting from the tax relief when it should be focused on middle class America, where MOST of the money comes from to stimulate the economy.

Social Security- This in my opinion is an issue that will always be an issue because of the complexity and dynamics in dealing with social security. A lot of factors affect it, which affects us all. The economy has a direct effect upon Social Security because in times when the economy is doing well, social security benefits aren’t a scarce commodity. By this I mean, there is actually enough money to take care of not only the elderly, but families, children, and people with disabilities. Another direct effect on Social Security is the amount of money the government actually allocates for the social security program, however, this nation is at a $500 billion deficit which means there is less and less money available to pour into this program, and the money is being used up, and sooner or later, there wont be any left to benefit us, our children, their children and so on. I believe that the government should spend less money on national defense and helping restore Iraq and Afghanistan and more money on social security. The people from those nations shouldn’t receive money that is DESPERATELY needed here in America, and the fact that billions of dollars are being poured into helping develop those nations is just absurd, not that they don’t need help, but we should focus on taking care of our OWN people before trying to go out abroad and helping people from other nations.

Education- The economic recession is hitting America like a sledge hammer. Everything is suffering, and education is one of those things that have been hit hard. Because of the economic recession, states have less money to allocate towards building new schools, hiring more teachers, and placing more cutting-edge technology at the hands of our young children. Right now, the effect is opposite. Schools are being closed downs, teachers laid off, school systems going into debt, and honestly, its sad. Education should be at the TOP of the list of issues to handle right now. Our children are our future. We must provide them with the best education we can give them so that they can live happy prosperous lives. In order to deal with this and get our education systems back on track, I believe that the federal government should pour BILLIONS of dollars into education programs for children, rebuilding of schools, hiring of teachers, providing new technology for the students, and in the long run, this plan would have paid for itself many times over. In the long run, it would stimulate our economy. Our goals should be focused on the long run, not the immediate present as that is a bad political strategy that could lead this nation farther down the hole than it has already gone.

Foreign Relations- Right now, the world isn’t too happy with the United States and the actions in which it has taken in the past 4-5 years. The united states has become a somewhat neoimperialistic nation that takes unilateral actions, and totally disregarding the rest of the international community just because we have more “muscle” than the other nations. The United States has developed an “I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want” attitude, which is hurting our relations with not just friendly nations, but our closest allies such as England, Germany, France, Turkey, and Spain. Our wreckless behavior has as John Kerry stated in an interview with MTV, “pushed our allies away”. We need to bring them back, and to do this I believe we must first listen to what they have to say. Take multilateral actions dealing with international issues. We must gain the support, respect, and trust of our allies or we will push them so far away, they will no longer wish to remain our allies, and that in itself could be the true downfall of the United States.

National Security- This is a BROAD topic, therefore I will only focus on one major issue, and that is the United States changing of foreign policy to allow itself to proliferate nuclear weapons that would be used on a CONVENTIONAL basis. By conventional I mean used as a normal weapon in everyday warfare (on a tactical level) instead of in strategic warfare. The United States should practice what it preaches and stop being such a hypocrite. We try to push nations to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, stop funding research to produce nuclear weapons, and stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have done this since the end of the cold war in the early 1990’s. We have made SIGNIFICANT leaps in controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons by signing and having other nations sign treaties limiting nuclear weapons, preventing nations from obtaining and producing nuclear weapons, and setting nations already with such weapons up to eliminate them completely, however, in the past few years, the United States has been SECRETLY planning, researching, and pursuing more nuclear weapons, something that was not made aware of until January of 2003 when it was leaked by Pentagon and White House officials. I believe that we need to continue in our quest to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. We should become more aggressive on the destruction of these weapons WORLDWIDE. What message would we be sending to other nations if we ourselves break our own treaties, promises, and pledges to eliminate our own weapons. That only gives those nations the incentive to create their own, using the excuse that “If the united states can create more, who says we cant produce our own”.

4. How would you over come the racism aspect to become President?

The racism issue, believe it or not, is still HUGE here in America. You would think that after decades of advancement for minorities such issues would not affect what person form what race would win a seat to the White House, unfortunately, it is still affected. I think that the message of a UNITED America should be one of the main focuses of my campaign. Remember, there may be many different races within the United States, but we are ALL still PROUD American’s. There is only ONE culture, that’s AMERICAN culture, not African American culture, not white culture, not even Hispanic culture. AMERICAN culture. I would not be able to stress that point enough in my campaign. We are one people, under god, indivisible, and equal.

5. How would you show your country that you would make the best President?

I would show my country that I would make the best President by showing them that I have a true understanding of the issues. I would LISTEN to the people and what they have to say and base my actions around how the people feel about certain issues. I would show the middle class families that I know what they are going through, because I too went through the same hardships that they are and I would show just how much I care for the American people and how they feel.

6. How would you change relations with Canada?

Well, relations with Canada have been really well for as long as I can remember. We are cooperating on a number of levels, including border patrols, defense, space initiatives, and trade, especially with the NAFTA which was passed under the Clinton administration, which greatly improved the already good relations between the United States and our close ally Canada. The best think I could do is try to create more trade between our two nations. It would benefit the economy of both.

7. How would you change relations with other countries?

I would use trade , humanitarian aid via the USAID program, and increased international cooperation with other nations to strengthen them. For African nations, humanitarian aid is SEVERELY needed in those countries, and I would provide MORE aid than we are giving them now to build strong ties and relations with them, and help take care of the people there in those nations.

8. Where do you stand on the issue of abortion and the death sentence?

I am against abortion, except in cases where the mother is abused in some way or another (rape, or anything along those lines). Sometimes such experiences can cause life long trauma that the mother could never get through and could end up harming herself and possibly the child, therefore, with that option being there (only for those reasons), the mother and child would not have to go through that.

As for the death penalty, I am for it. Like they say, an eye for an eye, an tooth for an tooth. I don’t believe that a person who can rape a person, kill a person, or both should be given the luxury to live, whether it be 20 years or life. In my opinion, justice would only be served when the person who killed or raped was put to death.

9. What would you do to change it?

I would introduce bills to Congress legalizing abortion ONLY if the mother was sexually abused, and I would introduce bills to congress FORCING states to use the death sentence to punish those who are vicious rappers and murderers

10. Do you agree with President George W. Bush about the war on terrorism?

Absolutely. We must confront the infidels who whish to bring down democracy using religion as a false pretense in which to do so by murdering thousands of innocent men, women, and children. We must act if we wish to maintain some level of security. We cannot let the terrorist get away with their attacks, only to let them attack us again and even worse. ACTION MUST BE TAKEN!!

11. Is there anything you would do differently?

The only thing I would do different is take multilateral actions against nations. Use diplomacy more to root out terrorists and use war as a last resort.

12. What do you think about the education system?

The education system is OK. Teachers should put their best effort into teaching their students. They should push them to do their ABSOLUTE BEST at ALL times.

13. What would you change?

I would pass legislation to change how often teachers are certified to teach to every 2 years, and for those who do not make the certification should be sent back to college to learn the skills they need.

14. How would you improve health care for your country?

Well, I would press congress to pass legislation making health care FREE to all citizens. This program would be funded by the federal and state governments.

15. I understand you're interested in space, what would you do to improve exploration in space?

FUNDING, FUNDING, FUNDING! Today, the United States pumps less than 1% of the total federal budget into the national space program, compared to 4% back in the 1960’s to aid in placing man on the Moon. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration should be given MORE money so that it could do more research that would benefit man, such as allowing more space based medical, scientific research, and commercial research. MOST of everything we have and use today was in some way shape or form designed by the space program FOR the space program, but transferred into normal domestic use, kind of like the Military’s GPS system, developed expressly for the US military, and now it is used by the entire world for various reasons (commercial, personal, etc.). Not only that, we could obtain our long range goal of send man to Mars, and further unmanned exploration of the solar system and the Universe so that we may TRY to find out the origins of the universe, man, and possibly our purpose for being here.

16. If you had the chance to go into space, would you?

Absolutely, without a doubt. Space has been the final frontier since Sputnik was launched by the Soviets (Russians) in the 1950’s, and it will remain as the final frontier for as long as man shall inhabit the vast expanse of the universe.

17. Where in space would you want to go?

Personally, id want to explore the whole universe if it was possible. I have seen breath taking pictures of far away nebula’s, stars, and galaxies and to actually be able to see them from a distance and experience that, would be something worth dying for.

18. What would you do to improve the world?

Global unity. I would bring the world together, just like Americans are one people, all human inhabitants of this world are one people, one culture, with the goal of living their our lives as best as we can and to the fullest.

19. Most importantly, when you do run, why should people vote for you?

People should vote for me when I run because I understand the issues that America is faced with. I understand what is needed to get this nation back on track, and even though it will be sometime before I do actually run for president, I believe that I will still have the answers to making America an even greater and more united nation. What America needs is a strong leader who would represent the nation and provide for the needs of the citizens, and I am just the person for the job.

20. If you were a citizen and someone just like you was running, would you vote for them?

Without a doubt. I would want someone who genuinely cares for the people of not only this country, but people from other countries. I would want someone who is competent and capable enough of running the government, bring about great positive changes and reforms for the benefit of the people, and someone who really wants to make a difference in America and the world. Only leaders who have those qualities are worthy of receiving my vote.

2004-03-30T21:12:00.000-05:00

US Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Today, I thought I'd address an issue that not very many people are aware of, the United States' proliferation of nuclear weapons. Over the past three weeks, I have been researching this topic for a scholarship award in which I am to write a speech addressing the U.S. president, Congress, and the American populous. During my research, I found out that President Bush along with Congress made provisions to allow the United States to produce nuclear weapons, primarily low-yield conventional nuclear bunker-buster bombs. Two important bills passed for the 2004 Fiscal Year by Congress making way for the construction of these weapons are the Defense Authorization Bill, and the Energy and Water Apportions Bill.

It is apparent that in order to create more nuclear weapons, facilities must be opened in order to actually produce weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. For this reason, the U.S. has opted to reopen the Los Alamos plant in New Mexico, which will be the only place in America that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. The plutonium produced at this plant would be used towards creating the low-yield conventional nuclear weapons.

While it is within the US' right to defend itself as it sees fit, there are some serious consequences that come with this new shift in U.S. foreign policy. These concerns are best brought out in two Congressional resolutions, Senate Resolution 76, and House Resolution 291. H.R. 291, the longest and most detailed of the two highlights five major points that explain the various downsides to the change in foreign policy:

1) It is contrary to fundamental requirements of international law, because the UN Charter does not permit preventive war.

2) It is counter productive, because US reliance on nuclear weapons encourages other states to acquire them, ultimately increasing the likelihood that a nuclear weapon will be used against the US.

3) It is antithetical to the United States' obligation under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

4) It is dangerous, because the assertion of the US right to engage in preventive war encourages other states to assert the same right.

5) It is also immoral, because they place a threat of mass destruction and the assertion of a right to initiate war, at the core of US foreign policy.

What is not mentioned, however, is the fact that this undermines the purpose of the START II treaty, which was created for the purpose of reducing nuclear arms world wide, whilst setting up nations for a total and complete disarmament of weapons of mass destruction within the next 10-20 years. By continuing on on the path the U.S. is on at the present time, it is increasing the liklihood that other nations such as Iran and North Korea will accelerate their nuclear weapoons programs. This presents another diplomatic program, because these nations will retort that if the United States has the right to build nuclear weapons, then they have the same right. Although these nations would use that as an excuse to create such weapons, I am in total agreeance. All nations have the right to protect themselves by any means necessary from any and all enemies. It is not fair that the US be able to break binding and permanent international laws by creating such weapons and forcefully allowing other nations to refrain from proliferating them in the same manner that the US is. In this instance, the United States would be categorized as the aggressor because it is taking on a policy of justifying pre-emptive conventional nuclear weapon strikes on all nations that threaten US interests at home and abroad. The use of these weapons on a conventional level is also morally wrong and additionally would have serious environmental repercussions, such as contaminated land, contaminated natural resources, and possible permanent damage to the atmosphere.

For decades the US has pressed, pressured, and threatened nations to stop pursuit, procurement, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, however, the US goes behind the world's back and secretly plans to create more nuclear weapons, adding to the tremendous number that the US already has. This is what I like to call "hypocritical foreign policy", as the US isnt practicing what it has been for so long preaching. How do you expect to gain the respect, trust, and cooperation of the entire international commuunity if we do something that we have for so long been protesting against?

2004-03-29T03:30:00.000-05:00

My Thoughts On The North Korea Conflict

Well, this is my first article on my site. Originally I was going to write an introductory article that basically reintroduces myself, but I deceided against it. There’s too much to know about me, therefore im skipping that and jumping right into my "post", if you will.

Many days have gone by since North Korea announced that it had nuclear weapons, or at least the plutonium and uranium to produce such weapons (the Pl and U-238 would be refined, enriched, and weapons-grade naturally). Since I first received the news about this, I have constantly wondered what will be done if in fact North Korea were to obtain a working nuclear or thermonuclear weapon (I doubt it would be thermonuclear since the physic and such is more complicated). What worries me most are the missile tests being carried out by NK. It is estimated that one of their medium range STRATEGIC missiles, or MRBM's, for short, has the capability of delivering a conventional warhead targeted at Washington D.C. This, along with their announcement that they will be able to create at least 3 nuclear devices within the time span of a year is highly unsettling. What is frustrating is that President Bush and his administration are not giving this crisis the top priority that it demands. Even after the fall of Iraq and the capture of Saadam Hussein, he has not made much effort to tend to this matter properly. Sure he is gathering a coalition of Asian nations such as Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea to try to "negotiate" with North Korea, but do you really think that North Korea will listen. Kim Chong-il is a stubborn hardliner that wont give in to demands. I believe that he thinks that just because he may have one or two tactical nukes that that gives him power. The guy is a lunatic. The only real way to deal with this is to use force.

When talking about the use of force against North Korea, I believe there are a few options and paths to take in dealing with this situation:

1) Utilize international diplomacy. Get the United Nations involved. Forget using the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) because they really have little power over the use, control, and distribution of nuclear materials. With the UN, you get the entire international community on your side, thus putting more and more diplomatic pressure on them. North Korea would be stupid to try to ignore or defy the UN.

2) Cease providing aid to North Korea. Despite a treaty signed in the mid 80's to early 90's, North Korea has intentionally and deliberately broken key restrictions and provisions of the treaty, thus in a way making it null and void, but for the sake of the people, we still provide them with energy and food. If you really want to pressure NK, you must stop the aid, primarily the energy aid. Without power, the country cant run, the economy suffers, and they cant progress. But once you stop that aid, you must back up that action by making sure they don’t continue to receive aid, and you accomplish that by placing US and UN sanctions on North Korea, while the effects may not be immediate, sooner or later, North Korea would be forced to negotiate. The down side is that it would hurt the Korean citizens, but its something that would in the long run be both effective and successful.

3) Another option, which is a bit on the radical and drastic side is the assassination if the communist premier, or attempt a coup de etat. That would permanently remove the premier from government in one way or another. I believe that the United States is too afraid to do such a thing. Personally i think that if he is causing so much trouble and is unwilling to make peace and cooperate, then we are justified to taking him out of this world, especially when thousands or maybe even millions of lives are at risk. One powerful man is a minute price to pay for the safety, security, and preservation of countless innocent civilian lives.

4) The final option is a very last resort. When all else fails, the use of deadly force by an international coalition of nations led by the United States should be authorized with the approval of the United Nations Security Council and/or the UN General Assembly to ensure that an invasion is legal by international law. This is also a very last resort because if the Korean war in the 1950's taught us anything, defeating them will not be easy. While they have an army as big as if not larger than the former Iraqi army, they have modern weaponry that would be very formidable against United States military forces. Not only that, the numbers of men needed to sustain such a campaign that could have the potential to last for years, and turn out like the Vietnam war of the 60's and 70's would be ridiculous. A national draft may be needed to supply the adequate amounts of men needed to fight a very tough modern communist military.

I believe the best option would be #2 which calls for the stoppage of aid to North Korea. This will "starve" the nation and force them to the negotiation table. It would also allow the IAEA a chance to set up a system to control radio active materials produced in Korean nuclear power plants, or they could get rid of the entire nuclear power program, which may or may not be the best thing to do since nuclear power is clean and a source of great energy. Taking out such plants would not only hurt the government, but the people as well as they go about with no electricity.

This is just my two cents on the situation. Many of you I know would beg to differ in some of the things I mentioned, primarily some of my options, however if you would like to make a comment or share your viewpoint on the issue, please e-mail me at kaimoni_sutton@hotmail.com.