When I say 'America', what's the first thing that comes to mind? Military prowess? Economic superiority? Greatness? I agree with all three of these statements and more. The following blog is taken almost directly from a speech I wrote for my 10th grade accelerated lit and comp class; it's a persuasive speech in favor of the U.S. becoming a regulatory force throughout the world. In the sake of simplicity, I'm going to make more of an ordered list/outline, because the speech was 5 minutes on the whole.
Without much further ado, my speech.
I. Reasoning for implementing such a policy
- Many nations as of late have been shying away from an assertive foreign policy, leaving a power vacuum that needs to be filled.
Ex: TheUK ’s misadventure in Somalia (’93) led to their inaction against the genocide in Rwanda a year later (1 million casualties resulted. Now after the Iraq War
Ex: A German parliamentary conference on 1/10/08 came to the conclusion that German foreign policy lacks interest in both the minds of the people, and the Parliament. The head speaker said that German foreign policy is going through a "switzerlandization" phase (leaning towards neutrality).
- Through the U.S.'s military action, economic aid can be restored those in need by nations who refuse to help out through militaristic means.
Ex: The U.N. has recently made a statement saying that over 100,000 Kenyans are in need of emergency care following post-electoral violence. And just today, FOX News released an update on the situation in Kenya, saying that the tribal warfare has already left 800 dead since December.
- This would be an easy policy to implement because most nations throughout the world have grown accustom to harboring U.S. troops.
Ex: Since 1950, 54 countries have had more that 1,000 American troops in them at any one time.
Ex: America has 702 bases in 130 countries worldwide with over 253,000 military personnel deployed.
Ex: And as a bonus, U.S. military installations actually benefit the surrounding locals. Over 44,000 natives globally are hired by the U.S. to manufacture products for them.
II. America could drastically improve the current situations in Africa
- The genocide in Darfur could be swiftly ended through U.S. military presence and action. Over 450,000 have already been killed and 2.5 million have been displaced.
- The removal of corrupt dictators would improve the conditions for those who are being oppressed.
Ex: Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, is currently leading the genocide of the Acholi people.
+ Uganda is also the source of Invisible Children; children recruited into the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). These kids learn to fight and kill ruthlessly at a very young age.
III. It is imperative that the war on terror continues
- The U.S. already has troops stationed in the Middle East.
Ex: 160,000 in Iraq and 30,000 in Afghanistan.
Ex: There are 5 permanent military bases planned for Iraq in the future.
- Depending on the source, the kill ratio of American soldiers to terrorist insurgents is 1:3 - 1:10. This means that America is winning the battles, but the war must continue on.
- War with neighboring Middle Eastern nations seems almost imminent.
Ex: The nuclear-bound nation of Iran. Diplomatic missions have failed, so it looks like the only solution will be military action.
Now as the world continues on its way, will its nations have what it takes to rise up together as a united front to defend the people of Earth from its multitude of threats, or will America have to rise to the occasion, take the world by the hand, and lead it into a new era of peace and prosperity? I favor the latter.
I received a 94% on this speech, what would you give me?
And the topic is open for discussion, so if anyone's reading this, feel free to argue for or against this policy.
Without much further ado, my speech.
I. Reasoning for implementing such a policy
- Many nations as of late have been shying away from an assertive foreign policy, leaving a power vacuum that needs to be filled.
Ex: The
Ex: A German parliamentary conference on 1/10/08 came to the conclusion that German foreign policy lacks interest in both the minds of the people, and the Parliament. The head speaker said that German foreign policy is going through a "switzerlandization" phase (leaning towards neutrality).
- Through the U.S.'s military action, economic aid can be restored those in need by nations who refuse to help out through militaristic means.
Ex: The U.N. has recently made a statement saying that over 100,000 Kenyans are in need of emergency care following post-electoral violence. And just today, FOX News released an update on the situation in Kenya, saying that the tribal warfare has already left 800 dead since December.
- This would be an easy policy to implement because most nations throughout the world have grown accustom to harboring U.S. troops.
Ex: Since 1950, 54 countries have had more that 1,000 American troops in them at any one time.
Ex: America has 702 bases in 130 countries worldwide with over 253,000 military personnel deployed.
Ex: And as a bonus, U.S. military installations actually benefit the surrounding locals. Over 44,000 natives globally are hired by the U.S. to manufacture products for them.
II. America could drastically improve the current situations in Africa
- The genocide in Darfur could be swiftly ended through U.S. military presence and action. Over 450,000 have already been killed and 2.5 million have been displaced.
- The removal of corrupt dictators would improve the conditions for those who are being oppressed.
Ex: Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, is currently leading the genocide of the Acholi people.
+ Uganda is also the source of Invisible Children; children recruited into the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). These kids learn to fight and kill ruthlessly at a very young age.
III. It is imperative that the war on terror continues
- The U.S. already has troops stationed in the Middle East.
Ex: 160,000 in Iraq and 30,000 in Afghanistan.
Ex: There are 5 permanent military bases planned for Iraq in the future.
- Depending on the source, the kill ratio of American soldiers to terrorist insurgents is 1:3 - 1:10. This means that America is winning the battles, but the war must continue on.
- War with neighboring Middle Eastern nations seems almost imminent.
Ex: The nuclear-bound nation of Iran. Diplomatic missions have failed, so it looks like the only solution will be military action.
Now as the world continues on its way, will its nations have what it takes to rise up together as a united front to defend the people of Earth from its multitude of threats, or will America have to rise to the occasion, take the world by the hand, and lead it into a new era of peace and prosperity? I favor the latter.
I received a 94% on this speech, what would you give me?
And the topic is open for discussion, so if anyone's reading this, feel free to argue for or against this policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment