America's Freedom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-N3dJvhgPg : Youtube video about Bin Laden's death.

When people think of the United States of America, they usually think of (beside the
hamburgers, Disneyland, and other fun and games) the Statue of Liberty, the
Declaration of Independence, the American Revolutionary War - things that represent
freedom. Ever since it came into being, the USA have declared liberty as one of its
most fundamental and primary values. Many wars - the Revolutionary War, the Civil
War, and others - have been fought to protect certain inalienable rights; many are still
being fought in the form of movements and unions today. Even in the affairs of the
world America has claimed the position of an international judge and protector of
liberty, aiding many countries and warning the others. Yet the question arises when we
see this same America stepping on this same freedom that it has sworn to protect.
Does America have the "right" to intrude on others' rights to protect its own citizens? To
break some rules so that it can carry out its own picture of world peace?

Such controversies have risen recently with the death - or rather, the assassination - of
Osama Bin Laden. Although Bin Laden's death has been hailed by many as a
substantial contribution to world peace, many question the legitimacy of the actual
steps taken to kill Bin Laden. The mission has been found to have gone against
international rules, which state that to dispatch troops in another nation, one must gain
consent or at least inform that nation of one's intentions. Pakistan was not even aware
of the fact that US troops were within its borders.

In order to really think about this question, we must look at the characteristics of a
nation. A nation is a unit of citizens comprised of those who (usually) agree to its
policies and culture, make their political and economic units, and in turn are protected
by the nation. In this sense that nations are self-serving units, nations are - or must be
-selfish for its own survival. Countries don't have to donate money and resources to
others, although it would be much appreciated. When they are attacked, it is only
natural that they must have a chance to defend themselves and their citizens. Following
this logic, the death of Bin Laden can be hailed or at least justified as a reasonable
action. After all, Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, for denying human rights to many
people, and other terrorism that threatened not only America but the rest of the world.
Yet the problem rises because of the fact that it went against international
security/military rules. The reason that these international rules exist is not trivial; once
they are gone, they would result in a multitude of slippery slopes. If Bin Laden's murder
was simply hailed as an end to terrorism (which is factually untrue),  then this would be
set as a prototype for other military missions in the future. Every nation would look to
the case of the USA - which is already being recognized as one of the world's
superpowers - and the set international rules would be mussed. This would lead to
more military chaos and eventually result in less safety. Not only realistically, but also
ideally must a nation follow international rules when they have good basis; countries
also form a certain society, after all. To defy to a rule that they have agreed to follow and
respect - because they know certain tangible harms would come of it - would break this
society apart, lessening world peace. As a world superpower, the effect of the USA is
even greater.

The actions that America took with Bin Laden can be seen as either selfish or
generous. It is selfish in the matter that America haughtily ignored the rules that it
needed to follow for the mission, and killed the terrorist leader without a shred of doubt.
Yet it is also generous in the matter that the world has been rid of a dangerous
terrorist. Although America, as a nation, does have rights to be selfish, it also must, as
a superpower, heed the rest of the world in its actions. This is where Bin Laden's death
 might be congratulated, but America's actions must be taken into criticism. If America
would really like to set a world example and settle world peace, then it should make
real changes: aid with the political and economic system to help the citizens and
persuade back the terrorists. Help with the humanitarian policies of the nation. These
solutions might sound very vague, but humanitarian interventions are always much
better - and longer-lasting - than military interventions. If America must be selfish and
protect its own borders, then let it play the part of the tortoise: slow and steady wins the
race, after all. Such are the steps to real protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/opinion/11friedman.html?ref=columnists
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?ref=columnists
describes how real peace won't come until there are significant changes made within
the political structures of the Middle East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/opinion/10iht-edcohen10.html?ref=columnists
celebrates the death of Bin Laden.

Possible Motions
THB military intervention is necessary to counter terrorism.
THB world superpowers have the right to military intervention.
THB America has a right to be a world superpower.