Hitler also thought that since the government was just developing it would have been a good time to seize power and take over the government. Finally, Hitler attempted the Munich Putsch also to gain support from the streets but this had failed him. I agree with the statement ‘the Reichstag Fire more important than the Enabling Act in allowing Hitler to consolidate power’ because of several reasons. Firstly, without the Reichstag Fire there wouldn’t have been an Enabling Act. The Reichstag Fire led to the Enabling Act because Hitler had managed to convince Hindenburg that it was a ‘communists uprising’.
In lee Bollinger speech he accused Ahmadinejad of being petty and cruel and criticized his dictatorship as a president. In Ahmadinejad’s speech he mentioned that he was invited by Lee Bollinger to address students in an academic atmosphere, which made it even more preposterous for lee Bollinger introduction being watched by his peers. Lee Bollinger allowed his emotions and personal feelings to overpower his speech. In a speech/introduction it should not be merely all opinionated. He should be somewhat of an educated man to have accomplished being a lawyer, the 19th president of Columbia University, an IV lead University.
‘HHMM’, Hollywood, Harvard, McDonald’s, and Microsoft, were selling not only their products but also America's culture and values, the secrets of its success, to the rest of the world.' However, employing only hard power or only soft power in a given situation will usually prove inadequate. Nye utilizes the example of terrorism, arguing simply utilizing soft power resources to change the hearts and minds of the Taliban government would be ineffective and requires a hard power component. Nevertheless, in the Middle East, in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, the openness of Western culture is repulsive, which we have a term for it ‘anti-Americanism’. As a result, Joseph Nye, suggests that the most effective strategies in foreign policy today require a mix of hard and soft power resources, the ‘smart power’.
He was against the Mexican War declared by American Government, as it was unjust to colonize other nations (United States itself was separated from British colonization through revolution). For this misdeed, he was imprisoned for a night. Although the crimes and the length of imprisonment of Thoreau and King were not same, both shared the same motive. Jacobus has pointed out that both Thoreau and King were willing to suffer for their views, especially with punitive laws denying civil rights to all citizens (King, 211). Socrates, a great philosopher in human history, also had followed the same path of breaking unjust laws.
This shows he cares more about what is right for the people then his own personal benefits. The authors used very strong language quoted by Del. Davis throughout the paper such as, “the death penalty is flawed, ineffective and racially biased. And if we can get enough people to understand that, then in a few years we can repeal the death penalty in the United States once and for all” (Jealous & Braveboy, p. 11). Those sentences speak a lot about how powerful words can affect us.
Since the basic of all human nature is to obtain power, we can assume that there is something that the US wants besides trying to stop the use of chemical weapons. With the past conflicts that we have had in the middle east, why do we need to try and topple a government or be the police for the area and try to neutralize the situation. When we ask ourselves what do we have to gain from this besides more power after the cost of many American lives, is it really worth to have a repeat situation like Iraq and Pakistan? “The character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.” (Morgenthau) The roots of all human nature is to obtain power, so out of losing many American soldiers lives, what do we gain? If we would have been more involved when we saw the sparks of conflict start, why did we not try to neutralize the sparks instead of fighting a huge wildfire.
8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
I believe the Bush Administration should not have done any of these things because if they had not done this, then we would not be in terrible situation. We would not be broke. None of the Americans would have lost their jobs and we would not be at war still. The first reason as to why the Bush Administration should be punished is because it had tortured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. In the article “A Body of Inquiries”, Jack M. Balkin wrote that punishment and
The right of “innocent until proven guilty” is one of the most important rights we Americans have. Regardless if these people are enemies of the Country, they stillhave the same rights under our laws. Freedoms of Americans are spelled out plainly in the Constitution, guarded by our laws, and the treaties we have with other countries. Torture violates all of these guidelines. If we do not show these freedoms to people of other countries, then we do our whole country a dishonor.
Illegal votes minimize citizen’s rights in the Constitution and it undermines our democracy that was established and preached by the founding fathers; therefore a solution for this loophole should be quickly tied and these actions no longer tolerable or allowed under the 14th amendment. As citizens of the US, we have a right stated in the 1st amendment to be able to express our opinions; our values and beliefs should be directly represented through the voting process. Although future elections are predicted to be heavily influenced by this growing minority population, politicians are beginning to apprehend the negative brunt illegal immigration has bestowed upon our country as this could be a small factor in the current struggling economy. Congressman Tom Tancredo has vast prospective ideas on how to reform our immigration system. By working across the aisle a feasible and successful solution to the straining liability and encumbrances may be obtained to make our country incorrupt and hospitable to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the citizens of the United State of