Boy Scouts board delays voting

Recently, our contemporary society has been leading towards allowing homosexual people and partners throughout society, including entrance into the army among other things. However, a membership ban on gays to join the Boy Scouts has recently brought into question - only to be delayed. The membership board cannot decide if they should allow openly gay people to join their organization.

I find this quite ridiculous, as in today's society, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted. I believe that postponing such discriminatory criteria is harming the generations behind us and opening them up to discrimination against gays. By doing so, our kids will continue contempt on a group because of some belief in society and yet another generation will pass with society being counter-productive by arguing about meaningless things instead of advancing as a society.

There are over 400 species that accept homosexuality. Only one species accepts homophobia. Why is it that little kids, even elementary school kids, cannot get into Boy Scouts, which has nothing to do with if you are homosexual or not, and have fun and go camping or become a survivor? If you are stranded on an island, is it fair that you didn't get the survival guide you wanted just because you were homosexual? I feel as though the membership committee is simply postponing the inevitable at this point. Some signs did show the law would be lifted, but with the debate being postponed, nobody knows what can happen.

In all things, I believe that homosexuality is something that shouldn't be debated today, it should simply be allowed. However, this is not the case, and with Boy Scouts showing that society still lingers on the subject, one can only guess how much time it will take.

Works Cited

Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. "Boy Scouts Board Delays Vote on Lifting Ban on Gays." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/06/nation/la-na-boy-scout-gays-20130207>.

PARNASS, SARAH. "Boy Scouts of America Delays Decision on Membership Policy Banning Gays." ABC News. ABC News Network, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/boy-scouts-america-delays-decision-membership-policy-banning/story?id=18420287>.

Wian, Casey, Casey Wian Reported from Irving, Michael Pearson Wrote, Reported From Atlanta. Holly Yan, Catherine E. Shoichet, and Devon Sayers Also. "Boy Scout Leaders Put off Vote on Gay Membership." CNN. Cable News Network, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/us/boy-scouts-policy>. 

North Korea's Rocket Launch

The conflict between North and South Korea has raged on for decades, and nothing has changed. North Korea has threatened South Korea over decades to reinvigorate the Korean War, but until now, none of their technology has proven effective or capable to do so. 

Recently, North Korea launched a long-ranged rocket that shocked Japan, America, and South Korea. All three quickly realized that North Korea may soon be able to produce inter-continental missiles, leading to destruction on a global level. This fear has brought safety concerns and some are debating whether military action is necessary. However, the rocket simply put a weather satellite into orbit, and North Korea claims there is no military incentive behind it. Most of the UN is debating if they should step up action on North Korea beyond simple embargoes, as that seems to have no effect, North Korea simply goes on to do what it pleases with no concern for its warnings.

Defense agencies world wide now accept that Kim Jong Un has some credibility now, and the Washington defense administration believes that the launch is cover for missiles targeted at the United States. There are thoughts that the missile launch could still be a failure because of a previous launch in the Spring of 2012 where a missile test failed from North Korea. I for one, believe that this should be a sign for nations world wide, but especially Japan, South Korea, and America, to step up their defense and prepare for an attack. The details on a simple rocket launch into orbit is still really fuzzy and nobody is quite sure of everything that happened 100%. If North Korea was to launch a nuclear missile, there could not be enough time to prepare for the oncoming attack. Because of this, I believe that the Obama administration has to step up funding for defense and be ready for an attack, even if it is just threats right now. 

Although I do understand that our economy is not suited for such action, I believe that it is necessary to do so. If we do not defend ourselves, there is no telling if there will be an economy for us to bring back. A nuclear armaggedon might be in store for us. Plus, if we avoid a war, that could save lives instead of save money. In the end, it's America's choice which one we want.

As North Korea violates more and more U.N. sanctions, I wonder how many rules it will take for the countries in the U.N. to draw the line and commence a counter-attack of some sort. If we keep shaking our heads at every law broken, sooner or later it'll be too late and we will no longer have any law to defend.

Works Cited

Kim, Jack, and Mayumi Negishi. "North Korea Rocket Launch Raises Nuclear Stakes." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 12 May 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/us-korea-north-rocket-idUSBRE8BB02K20121212>.

"North Korea Successfully Launches Long-range Rocket." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57558644/north-korea-successfully-launches-long-range-rocket/>.

Ramstad, Evan. "North Korea Claims Success in Rocket Launch." Wall Street Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324024004578174000078592218.html>. 

Syria Conflict

Although in my previous blog I did address U.S. intervention, this time I'm addressing it in Syria because I feel that each country has its own story and therefore needs its own justification and backing.

The question brought to America again is if we should get involved. In the conflict between the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the current government, 70,000 people have died. The government is threatening the use of chemical weapons on their own people (much more painful and destructive than atomic weapons) and the conflict is well drawn-out, causing lots of death over long periods of time.

The American people are pointing to not getting involved, with 76% surveyed saying that intervention is a bad idea. In my previous post about Mali, this is indeed the case; but the conflict is much more severe and the consequences can be much more drastic if the situation is not resolved. As of right now, futile attempts at ceasefire have done nothing on either side, the rebels and the government have ignored it. The UN is simply powerless at the moment because Russia and China are not responding to it and Russia is aiding the government at the moment, putting the rebels at a serious disadvantage. The rebels are outgunned in every aspect, including air force, supplies, and infantry. Their only hope is intervention, and their cause does reflect America's interests.

However, I believe that in this case, intervention is necessary. Although we are in trouble ourselves, intervention is in our best interest in the long run. If Syria was to continue on its current path, then the middle east would simply continue in turmoil and become more and more anti-Western, as it is becoming now. If this continues to happen, then America's economy may be in more trouble than it is now due to our dependence on oil.

The regret of our fallen soldiers from the war on terrorism still hangs in all of our hearts, and so therefore I believe that our intervention cannot be of soldiers or any american citizens, but rather or supplies and newly developing drone technology. With these, we can help the rebels out-supply the government which can really help them win the long war. Many innocent people are dying in Syria, and if the fighting does not end in the rebel victory, more can die in America and allied nations within the next decade or so.

Works Cited

Brooks, Mo. "U.S. Cannot Afford to Intervene in Syria's Civil War." Congress Blog. The Hill, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/239971-us-cannot-afford-to-ntervene-in-syrias-civil-war>.

"Council on Foreign Relations." Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.cfr.org/syria/american-options-syria/p26226>.

"Few Back U.S. Military Role in Syria – But Support Jumps in Specific Cases." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/few-back-u-s-military-role-in-syria-but-support-jumps-in-specific-cases/>. 

Mali: The next Afghanistan?

Time and time again, the world finds itself in chaos and America intervened to save democracy and protect its self-interests. However, after the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, many Americans are thinking twice about  getting involved in wars. But after all the roles that America has played in the world, do we have a choice anymore? The question many Americans are asking today is, "Will America get involved?"

Currently, America is not directly involved with troops. France has taken the reigns and is sending troops to fight over Mali and reclaim the recently overthrown democratic government. French troops are being supplied by American industries, and America is leading fuel and airstrike missions in Mali. America has yet to send any troops over there, and I believe that this choice is the right thing to do.

Mali is a landlocked country and surrounded by seven fragile countries. If it is to fall, it could pose serious threats and force all of Africa into control by the Islamic militants. This could threaten the American views of democracy and seriously increase the chances of a future 9/11 attack. In this case, however, France is in control of the defense; and if America were to supply them with whatever is needed, the need for troops will not be required. Americans have become weary of war and fear the consequences of a future war. Nobody wants send our soldiers over there and threaten their lives. Our technology today enables us to send drones to Mali that could help the French. The need to send troops is nonexistant, the only plausible support to send troops is to support the French.

As stated by a U.S. official, intervention in Mali could take years to complete. Many are saying that it is the War in Afghanistan all over again, and that only complete U.S. intervention could solve the turmoil. However, this is not the case. America is a world power, but so is France. As our ethnocentric views have labeled most European countries as militarily inferior, in reality this is far from the case. In fact, right now the tides have turned in France's favor almost as soon as France landed in Mali. The insurgents are hiding in mountains and rapidly losing ground. It seems as if France has learned from the mistakes of America in Afghanistan and tried better techniques on the war against terror.

So Americans today may continue asking if we are going to get involved, but in reality it is not necessary and in fact could end up being a burden to our economy once again. By simply supplying the French military, our goal of keeping terrorism on the low is accomplished and many American lives are saved.




Citations

Formanek, Ingrid, Pierre Meilhan, and Barbara Starr. "U.S. Steps up Involvement in Mali." CNN. Cable News Network, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.


Press, Associated. "US Official: Mali Intervention ‘could Take Years’; Militants Were Trained by Gadhafi’s Libya." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.


"Wickham: U.S. Military Role in Mali Not Far off." USA Today. Gannett, n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.