Direct and Indirect Effects of WWI on 20th Century Genocide. <Need your opinion...>

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by BeEgEe, Dec 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151
    The US is currently drowning in debt due to the cost of fighting a war on two different fronts. This war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan is reaching the trillion dollar mark and shows no signs of coming to conclusion in the near future. The current budget is dominated by funds going toward carrying out day to day operations, honoring contracts, and keeping the military from breaking in Iraq and Afghanistan. The (high and low) estimated cost of implementing the proposed policy prescriptions are null and void because the US has already substantially exceeded its budgetary limitations. The current administration has to fight for, and explain, where every single dollar is going, as well as its specific purpose. The US congress has tightened the purse strings after current events have shown many cases of wasteful spending and billions in missing dollars.


    The FIU policy, as proposed, is simply not proportionally affordable, and cannot be implemented without the resources recommended. Additionally, there is absolutely no room in the Budget to carry out an operation with the FIU policy's size and scope. The proposed FIU policy would also come with a multi-billion dollar, initial price tag. A protracted engagement in a country currently involved in a 20 year civil war would exponentially increase that amount of funding required to complete such an operation. Also, there has been no kind of budgetary planning for this kind of expenditure, as it is not in the immediate strategic interests of the US. This type of operation would require lengthy and detailed planning if it were to ever receive the funding for implementation.

    In conclusion, the FIU policy is shortsighted and falls short in meeting the criteria requirements. It also lacks sustainability and isn't remotely ready for immediate implementation. While it is possible for the US military to conduct such an operation, it simply lacks the resources to even consider taking on such an endeavor. The proposed policy is formidable political obstacle that would be challenging, if not impossible to overcome. While the ongoing genocide has gained much international exposure, inserting combat troops into the region would not garner the popular support it would require to push this plan through the hierarchy of the US government. In addition, the policy's budgetary requirements far exceed the current ceiling of the US budget. It would be impossible to deviate or commit funds from the two war fronts to a third on a separate continent.


    The FIU policy, as proposed, is simply unfeasible. Perhaps if the situation on the ground take a turn for the worse the option to insert combat forces to quell the violence might be more viable.
    If offers only a quick fix to a problem that requires a well planned and potewn
    test
  2. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151
    The US is currently drowning in debt due to the cost of fighting a war on two different fronts. This war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan is reaching the trillion dollar mark and shows no signs of coming to conclusion in the near future. The current budget is dominated by funds going toward carrying out day to day operations, honoring contracts, and keeping the military from breaking in Iraq and Afghanistan. The (high and low) estimated cost of implementing the proposed policy prescriptions are null and void because the US has already substantially exceeded its budgetary limitations. The current administration has to fight for, and explain, where every single dollar is going, as well as its specific purpose. The US congress has tightened the purse strings after current events have shown many cases of wasteful spending and billions in missing dollars.


    The FIU policy, as proposed, is simply not proportionally affordable, and cannot be implemented without the resources recommended. Additionally, there is absolutely no room in the Budget to carry out an operation with the FIU policy's size and scope. The proposed FIU policy would also come with a multi-billion dollar, initial price tag. A protracted engagement in a country currently involved in a 20 year civil war would exponentially increase that amount of funding required to complete such an operation. Also, there has been no kind of budgetary planning for this kind of expenditure, as it is not in the immediate strategic interests of the US. This type of operation would require lengthy and detailed planning if it were to ever receive the funding for implementation.

    In conclusion, the FIU policy is shortsighted and falls short in meeting the criteria requirements. It also lacks sustainability and isn't remotely ready for immediate implementation. While it is possible for the US military to conduct such an operation, it simply lacks the resources to even consider taking on such an endeavor. The proposed policy is formidable political obstacle that would be challenging, if not impossible to overcome. While the ongoing genocide has gained much international exposure, inserting combat troops into the region would not garner the popular support it would require to push this plan through the hierarchy of the US government. In addition, the policy's budgetary requirements far exceed the current ceiling of the US budget. It would be impossible to deviate or commit funds from the two war fronts to a third on a separate continent.


    The FIU policy, as proposed, is simply unfeasible. While it offers an ideal quick fix to the conflict, it fails to address any complication or provide a contingency plan for negative residual effects the policy might have on the region. Perhaps if the situation on the ground took a turn for the worse, the option to insert combat forces to quell the violence might be more viable.

    For this policy to become more applicable and plausible, it needs to further address planning and offer a stratagem for exiting the region. Another possible recommendation would be to work for a multilateral solution to the conflict in Sudan. If other countries could share the burden by committing troops, funding, and resources, then this type of aggressive maneuver could be possible. Also, with China uncommitted to punishing the Khartoum government, there is no hope for the UN to make any real progress. Getting China on board is a necessary goal, and critical to addressing the conflict in Sudan. A plan of this nature would require multiple nations to contribute in order for it to have success, and put an end to the ongoing genocide in the Dafur region of Sudan.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)