Techshristi's Forum

Author Topic: Should couples be banned from adopting children overseas?  (Read 1345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr. Patel

  • Behind Every Sucessful Business Decision there is always a CMA!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
    • http://www.techshristi.com/
  • Education: BBA,MBA,CMA
Should couples be banned from adopting children overseas?
« on: September 06, 2011, 12:26:37 AM »
Should couples be banned from adopting children overseas?

With the on going media coverage of ill-treated of children in Chinese and Romanian orphanages and the increasing numbers of infertile couples in the developed world international adoption appears to solve two problems at once. However recently Romania has stopped all international adoptions amid claims of corruption and human trafficking. Similar stories have clouded adoptions from Guatemala. Despite these difficulties international adoptions by US citizens have tripled in the past 5 years and legislation has been passed to make it easier for these adopted children to obtain citizenship. While some children complain of a feeling of cultural dislocation, others are sent to Chinese-American summer camps and seem delighted with their new homes and dual identity. The long-term effects of such migrations are hard to predict but many opponents call for more efforts to be made to house children in their country of birth, with proper support for domestic orphanages and adoption schemes.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 05:30:00 AM by Guest »

Techshristi's Forum

Should couples be banned from adopting children overseas?
« on: September 06, 2011, 12:26:37 AM »

Offline Mr. Patel

  • Behind Every Sucessful Business Decision there is always a CMA!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
    • http://www.techshristi.com/
  • Education: BBA,MBA,CMA
Re: Should couples be banned from adopting children overseas
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2011, 12:30:10 AM »
Pros
After the September 11th attacks, the USA was fully justified in waging war to punish those responsible and to prevent future attacks. The Taliban were not a passive host for Bin Laden but were closely associated with him ideologically, and in his debt for the crucial support he has lent them in their own civil war. By sheltering him and his terrorist network, and by refusing to give him up, the Taliban are his accomplices in the September 11th atrocities and should be overthrown in the interests of justice and global peace.

Cons

Even assuming that Bin Laden was guilty of masterminding the September 11th atrocities, that is no reason for a war on Afghanistan. Given the fragmentary nature of government in the country, even if the Taliban had wished to hand over Bin Laden, they were probably not capable of seizing him in order to do so.


Pros
The invasion of Afghanistan was aimed directly at capturing Bin Laden and overthrowing the Taliban regime that has harboured him, rather than being a war against the entire Afghan people. The Afghan people have suffered greatly under Taliban rule, especially women and ethnic and religious minority groups, and they deserve a different and better government. In the past few years the Taliban have made it very difficult for the UN and other aid agencies to deliver humanitarian relief in Afghanistan, so in the medium-term an invasion would improve matters.

Cons
Even if the Taliban were judged to be equally guilty with Bin Laden, the Afghan people are not; the Taliban conquered the country with the help of Bin Laden and thousands of other foreign, mostly Arab, fighters, and their rule is heavily oppressive. The invasion of Afghanistan is still likely in the long run to lead to a prolonged power struggle or civil war between different ethnic groups or local warlords, as before 1996. This will lead to many innocent lives being lost in the crossfire, prevent humanitarian aid that is desperately needed after three years of drought reaching millions of starving Afghans, and create a terrible refugee crisis.



Pros
Invasion was the only way to try to capture or destroy Bin Laden and his terrorist organisation. Bombing on its own can prepare the way for a ground invasion, guaranteeing air supremacy and disrupting the enemy’s command and control systems, but without the eventual commitment of land forces the USA’s global coalition could not hope to achieve its objectives. Conversely, the isolation of the Taliban regime before September 2001 means that there are no meaningful diplomatic sanctions that could be applied in an attempt to achieve these aims peacefully.

Cons
There are great dangers involved in fighting a ground war in Afghanistan, as the British discovered in the nineteenth century and the USSR found in the 1980s. The mountainous terrain and hostile weather conditions make a normal land campaign impossible, negate the USA’s technological advantages, and make it ideal for guerrilla warfare. Nor did invading Afghanistan guarantee the capture of Osama Bin Laden; his familiarity with the hostile terrain offered him plenty of hiding places. The failure of US forces to apprehend warlords in Somalia ten years ago showed how hard it was to target particular individuals, even in more promising circumstances.

Pros
Invasion was the only way to prevent future terrorists using Afghanistan as a base. The Taliban have provided a supportive base for a range of terrorist groups seeking to overthrow regimes in former-Soviet Central Asia, China and Kashmir, as well as for the global terrorist campaign of Al-Qa'ida. The stability of the whole Central Asian region pivots upon the installation of a new government in Afghanistan dedicated to peaceful coexistence with is neighbours, and this can only be achieved through an invasion.

Cons
An invasion using conventional military tactics and techniques will never be an effective measure against an elusive, diffuse, highly secretive international network such as Al-Qa'ida. If they are driven out of one country, they will always be able to find somewhere else to base their activities. To make the whole population of Afghanistan suffer in the vain hope of damaging such an elusive organisation was unacceptable.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 05:30:00 AM by Guest »

Techshristi's Forum

Re: Should couples be banned from adopting children overseas
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2011, 12:30:10 AM »

 
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18