<p>Anyone willing to take a look at mine?? i'd really appreciate it.</p>
<p>Tim</p>
<p>please?? anyone??</p>
<p>i will, PM it to me</p>
<p>You can PM it to me as well.</p>
<p>PM it up ^^</p>
<p>I'm procrastinating also. I wrote a SFS one, then decided at the last minute to do the business school. Bleh. Good luck to anyone else out there still working hard.</p>
<p>It doesn't actually fit in pm so I thought i'd just paste it in here. I look forward to hearing from those willing to make comments.</p>
<p>We sit currently at a unique and potentially pivotal point in world history. The United States has become the single world superpower, a superpower able, and willing, to do as it wishes without check. In the past, the United States has used Britain to legitimize its actions when great issues were at stake (for example, the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War); however, the current Neoconservative American view of foreign policy has shown that the U.S. is willing to pursue its own interests abroad without any allies at its side. Had the U.K. elected not to stand by the U.S. in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom would nonetheless have gone forward. </p>
<p>In addition to Britain, the United Nations has also been diminished in power. For one reason or another, Americans, on the whole, think the UN to be a pointless organization, and indeed the next Attorney General believes the Geneva Conventions to be obsolete and quaint. America has already once refused to pay attention to the checking force of the United Nations (when invading Iraq), a dangerous indication of possible future American foreign policy. </p>
<p>Therefore, the truth is that in the future it is highly likely that America will enter into conflict without Britains approval (or that of the UN), and Britain and the world will be unable to do anything to prevent it. For America to wield this kind of power is unhealthy and dangerous. The special relationship (between the U.S. and the U.K.) that significantly shaped Western foreign policy in the 20th century is now wholly one-sided, leaving a sizeable question mark over how American power will be checked as we venture into the 21st century. </p>
<p>While Americas technical superiority has been increasing exponentially since the end of the Cold War and Reagans immense defense buildup, Britain has, ironically, been steadily decreasing its military budget since the end of the Conservative Thatcher years. From 1992 to 2000, defense spending in the United Kingdom has dropped from $51.2 billion to $34.5 billion. As spending on military decreased, Britain and its European allies began to put an ever-higher percentage of their GDPs into welfare and other domestic and international social programs.</p>
<p>This trend, which began in the early 90s, has culminated in Americas military spending now matching the defense budgets of the entire rest of the world put together. As no country comes even close to rivaling Americas international might, one begins to wonder how the world will deal with the U.S. in the future. Surely we cannot lie back and accept that henceforth the United States will be the supreme international moral authority. In the event that the whole world oppose the actions of America, as was so nearly the case with Iraq, there needs to be a force powerful enough to counter and sway it. </p>
<p>For the Western world, the solution lies in a stronger European Union. While Britain has had leverage in Americas affairs in the past, the amount of leverage has been in direct proportion to the amount it had contributed towards U.S. objectives. For example, when British troops fought alongside Americans in Korea in the early 1950s, Clement Attlee was able to push Truman towards nuclear restraint. Likewise, as Britain was Americas most significant Cold War ally, Thatcher, on the eve of the 1985 Reykjavik Summit, successfully convinced Reagan not to abandon the nuclear deterrent in pursuit of his Strategic Defense Initiative. Therefore, now that Britain wields much less military might, and has as such much less to offer the United States, it holds far less influence in Americas affairs.</p>
<p>With a stronger E.U. would not only come the seriously needed check to American power, but a diplomatic power able to sway the United States into such international agreements as the Kyoto Protocol. As Britain looks across the Atlantic currently for protection, if it were to look to mainland Europe, towards building a stronger E.U., it could find the protection it so desires. Ironically, this protection is only necessary as a result of its relations with America for its efforts alongside the U.S., it has become the #3 target for a rogue state behind the U.S. and Israel. With increased tenacity and willingness on the U.K.s part towards building a more united, stronger E.U., NATO would become the worlds second military power and the European Rapid Reaction Force would actually become operational.</p>
<p>At this time when international hostility is focused on America, and when Europes individual countries can do little to help, now is the moment for Tony Blair to side with his Foreign Office and look towards the E.U. for future protection. Britains future lies not as a solo force alongside America, but as an integral part of the E.U., an E.U. that once fully organized will become Americas number-one ally, its number one check in the balance of international power, and an organization more able to right the wrongs of the world through eliminating the root causes, such as the inequality between the wealthy West and the poverty-stricken Developing World. Blair must put his own words into action: a more effective common [European] foreign and security policy, together with making a success of the European Defense Initiative, is vital.</p>
<p>That's that. Please tell me if it came across as anti-American, because that was not its intention. Thanks a lot,</p>
<p>Tim</p>
<p>tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long, I was tempted to just skip over lots of it, then again, my essay was rather bland so, who knows, wait until April</p>
<p>I know it's too long, but stretching the margins and making it 11 font I got it to just over one page. I've read here that some people used 10 font and other measures so I hope this doesn't matter too much. Any content comments? I also forgot to say that i'm a dual U.K./U.S. citizen and moved to the U.S. when I was twelve. My "personal" essay is about my growth etc. and the perspective i've gained as a result of the move, so this essay is tied to that. Thanks,</p>
<p>Tim</p>
<p>anyone else?? i guess it's a little late, maybe tomorrow morning.</p>
<p>a little late now...but I thought there was a little bit too much emphasis on Britain. unless that was what you meant to do. well written.</p>
<p>Wow, that was very politically biased with sardonic, caustic, ankle-biting comments spread throughout. Sounds like just another cookie-cutter michael moore wanna-be. BTW, it's President Reagan to you son. </p>
<p>" For one reason or another, Americans, on the whole, think the UN to be a pointless organization, and indeed the next Attorney General believes the Geneva Conventions to be obsolete and quaint." "</p>
<p>...Did you really send this??!! This essay will be a major detriment to your application.</p>
<p>Benner...that's harsh! :(</p>
<p>"Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own. "</p>
<p>-Harris</p>
<p>brenner...this wasn't politically charged...and the next attorney general does believe teh geneva conventions to be "obselete and quaint" and most americans do think teh UN is pointless...</p>
<p>wow brenner, chill out dude. I tend to agree with timmy here, and even if i didn't, he gets his point across clearly. This essay isn't a detriment. and no, it isn't president reagan to him. it wouldn't fit in the context. next time, read the whole essay and actually make constructive criticism, as opposed to trying to get a plug in for your favorite conservative.</p>
<p>TimR, don't worry. It's supposed to be about your opinion. I didn't agree with what you wrote but it's fine and clearly shows your interest in foreign relations. Though personally, I really hate generalizations about Americans coming from Americans. The only way your essay may have sounded remotely "anti-American" is the fact that all you do is talk about how the EU/Britain can control America instead of how America itself can change for the better. That would have made it sound more positive and decreased the sense that you are distancing yourself away from your country....but that's just a matter of opinion.</p>
<p>i thought it was well-expressed also. i dont personally agree with everything you said, but you substantiated your opinions well with facts and it was very logical. if a bit on the long side, it made me take on a different perspective and educated me a little on this matter, so thanks for sharing ur opinion. its intersting to hear a dual citizen's opinion on things like this.</p>
<p>only real content problem: I stumbled over this paragraph. Most of ur essay was very clear, but somehow some of the sentence structure made this one extremely convaluted: "With a stronger E.U. would not only come the seriously needed check to American power, but a diplomatic power able to sway the United States into such international agreements as the Kyoto Protocol. As Britain looks across the Atlantic currently for protection, if it were to look to mainland Europe, towards building a stronger E.U., it could find the protection it so desires. Ironically, this protection is only necessary as a result of its relations with America for its efforts alongside the U.S., it has become the #3 target for a rogue state behind the U.S. and Israel. With increased tenacity and willingness on the U.K.s part towards building a more united, stronger E.U., NATO would become the worlds second military power and the European Rapid Reaction Force would actually become operational."</p>
<p>Otherwise, I think it was good. Best wishes for April!</p>
<p>thanks for the words guys. snowfaerie that paragraph changed quite a bit in my final version, as did a fair amount of other stuff. if anyone's interested (as i'm sure they're not) i'd be happy to paste the final version in here. haosquared, i understand your issue with generalizations about americans but my personal view is that it's fine so long as one notes that they are indeed generalizations, not all-encompasing truths. also haosquared, fair point about it perhaps needing a little on how america should change, but my personal opinion is that it's not america that needs to do the changing, it's the rest of the world. america has done nothing wrong, it has just been unbelievably successfull. the issue has become, however, in my opinion, that the u.s. is now simply too powerful. even putting aside the fact that it's possible america may do something dangerous to the world in the future, the fact remains that the u.s. is currently free to define what is and is not "dangerous" independently from anyone else. it's like if i had the freedom to decide myself whether my answer to this question is right or wrong, and its ultimate "rightness" being out of the hands of anyone but me. no matter how smart i am this is just wrong period. i hope that analogy makes sense...perhaps not.</p>
<p>i also forgot to say that my not saying "president reagan" has nothing to do with politics. i didn't say "Prime Minister Blair" or "Prime Minister Thatcher" either...it appears as though some else's political motivations are rather more transparent than my own, a problem with not saying "President Reagan" but no note of leaving "Truman" on its own?</p>