Problem from Hell

Problem from Hell Assignment
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Tittle
Professor’s Name
Date
Problem from Hell
According to Samantha Power’s main points, she observes that American policymakers have been continuously hesitant to condemn mass killings as genocide or to take accountability for leading a worldwide military intervention. Samantha alleges that devoid of meaningful pressure from the American citizens, policymakers have evaded the name “genocide” completely, which came into more extensive use after World War II and Holocaust (Samantha, 2020). As an alternative, the policymakers petition to the primacy of national welfares or dispute that a United States reaction might be ineffective and speed up violence as an excuse for inaction. Samantha Power thinks that such explanations usually are ill-founded. I fully agree with her main points. She argues that worse than the United States toleration of terrible killings was that on the occurrence, the U.S. directly or indirectly assisted those carrying out genocide. Examples include the government providing manufacturing and agricultural credits to Iraq while Saddam Hussein was trying to wipe out its Kurds. On the other hand, it also orchestrated the United Nations Credentials Committee’s vote to favor the Khmer Rouge (Samantha, 2020). It pressured the United Nations Security Council to remove Rwanda’s peacekeepers upheld an arms restriction against the Bosnian Muslims, stopping them from protecting themselves.
I agree since there has been America’s disgracefully ineffective reaction to genocide in the twentieth century. There is a need for the military, financial, and diplomatic arsenal of America to go after meaningful interventions. I think that America’s inaction on the issue of genocide encourages mass murderers and genocidal tyrants. The American leaders did not act because they did not want to.
According to me, we should condemn the government’s inaction on the issue of genocide since genocide has dire consequences to the innocent citizens of America. The government’s unwillingness or inability to act on genocide and acknowledged problems usually generates sufferings and increases the extent of harm done by the damages. The government should develop interventions to deal with the issue of genocide and speak out about this concern.
Economics, politics, and culture intersect to impact public health. The political system is the means by which public health officials can attain lasting and population-wide system change. From the political outlook, the economic and vitality feasibility of any community is hugely reliant on the people’s wellbeing and the efficiency of its health establishments. Greater poverty and lower-income are more strongly connected to greater mortality rates than is the joblessness rate. There is also still a considerable organization of research that, in the short run, economic growth can be disadvantageous to wellbeing. Economics is connected with learning and impacting the economy. On the other side, politics is the practice and model of impacting individuals through power. In theory, economics could be non-political. The influence of culture on health is massive. It affects insights on public health, approaches to health promotion, illness, and death, where patients seek help, beliefs about causes of disease, how disease and pain are experienced, the types of treatment patients prefer, and their perceptions of health.
I think that genocide belongs in a dialogue of public health concerns. Lately, the range of public health has grown to take in matters of the humanitarian crisis, war, and violence. Genocide hence belongs to the issue of public health. It the period to openly identify genocide as an additional concern within the purview of public health (Willis