<p>I just finished writing my essay for Georgetown SFS. I'd greatly appreciate some opinions. If you can help me out just post here and i'll pm it to you. Thanks a lot,</p>
<p>Tim</p>
<p>I think I can help.</p>
<p>Feel free to PM me, and I'll read and critique it. Since I haven't applied to Georgetown, please include the prompt.</p>
<p>Joey</p>
<p>please pm me as well, and also include prompt. Wait a 1-3 days for delivery, as I give lengthy comments and like to give my full attention to the essay at hand.</p>
<p>PM it or <a href="mailto:postalservice@gmail.com">postalservice@gmail.com</a></p>
<p>email me... at <a href="mailto:crichessill@yahoo.com">crichessill@yahoo.com</a> i can only comment on the content... just to let u know... dont count on me for grammar.</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for the responses. Unfortunately time is of the essence so if it'll take 1-3 days don't worry yourself with reading it. 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. For those who don't know, the prompt is: "Briefly discuss a current global issue, indicating why you consider it important and what you suggest should be done to deal with it."</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. Thank you so much,</p>
<p>Tim</p>
<p>I forgot to say, 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?? i guess it's a little late, maybe tomorrow morning.</p>
<p>These are just my opinions, mind you...</p>
<p>We sit currently We currently sit sounds better.</p>
<p>world superpower, a superpower able, and willing, to do Repetitive, and misplaced commas. Maybe: a world superpower, one that is able and willing/ or if you like the repetition: a world superpower, a superpower able and willing.</p>
<p>I'm sorry that I cannot read it thoroughly right now; it's 3 am and I'm sleepy - but I thought I'd help out while I still had the strength :)</p>
<p>I don't live in America, (Canada) but "yes", even to me it sounded politically charged, in this world of asinine politically correct labels (then again they did ask for your views). Overall the grammar is excellent, but the essay does sound like it came out of text book. Since they are asking for your opinions and your solution, try to bring a personal element to it - such as stating how you witnessed the change in political views over the war when you moved from one country to the other. </p>
<p>Anyway, good luck with your application - and remember, I am not an English professor! These are just my short opinions (I'm still very tired).Also, we have the U.K in common - I moved to Canada when I was twelve too.</p>
<p>AWESOME ESSAY ...... LOVED IT, just do some patching up and it is da bomb</p>
<p>thanks for your comments guys. apple, i don't think it's supposed to be personal really, but am i wrong about this?</p>
<p>You may send it to me for review.</p>
<p>it's a few posts up lawyerdad; i sent you a pm saying the same thing. Unfortunately my essay didn't all fit in one pm so i just posted it in here.</p>
<p>It's pretty decent, you tried to cover too much in my humble opinion, but overall it's good.</p>
<p>I sent my g-town app this morning (walsh too), heh. Hopefully we both get in. best of luck</p>
<p>Overall, I liked your style, though colleges will probably want a bit more of a personal quality.</p>
<p>I can't say that I agree with your analysis, though. I'm sure you are very well read into the case you establish; however, first of all, Great Britain isn't in a position to "check" U.S. power or legitimacy. Actually, Britain has set itself quite contrary, namely in aligning itself with the United States in Afghanistan and, more importantly, Iraq.</p>
<p>Likewise, I think that you overlook some huge issues arising with the European Union. Take a look at the November/December edition of Foreign Affairs in the response to the article "Talking Turkey" (from September/October). The author, a German official, relays that the EU is currently overextended, especially with its welcoming of ten new member nations last year. </p>
<p>To add insult to injury, the US has been sending troops (albeit, in small numbers) throughout the Post-Soviet Bloc. That further endangers the EU's authority in the region, and thereby endangers the hope for future EU power. </p>
<p>Sorry... I'm just very political, and like a good argument. I don't think that your reviewers will be able to pick your analysis apart, though. Overall, a bit of a coldly written essay, as it utilized very little author voice. Then again, I suffer the same plight. </p>
<p>Overall, good.</p>
<p>my entire argument is that the EU isn't currently strong enough, and that Britain is too allied with the U.S....</p>
<p>were Britain to look to the Continent instead of across that Atlantic, I argue, the EU would gain strength and the world would be a better place with American power checked...checked by the EU not Britain.</p>
<p>It's a bit late for comments, because RD was due today, but good luck! I got in early and I don't think they're looking for a correct argument, but a well presented one. I think your topic is pretty common (I wrote about something similar,and got in). </p>
<p>A little bit hostile, though...shouldn't be a problem, they probably prefer people with an opinion :)</p>
<p>ah, but the question becomes this:</p>
<p>would the EU be America's number one ally and keep the U.S in check?</p>
<p>Or would the EU be America's number one threat and hinderance to international economic circulation and free trade?</p>
<p>why would that ever be the case? a stronger EU would only make transcontinental trade stronger and more prosperous...</p>