This lack of similarities had made agreements very difficult to come to between these two nations, which raised tensions between them. The Soviet Union and United States had poor relations due to a constant power struggle. Both nations had come out of World War II being superpowers - superior to other nations in their technology, economy, as well as military forces. The clashing idealogys between the two nations led to the Cold War, a war being fought more so on the political aspect by using tactics to lure the independent nations lacking a government to choose their form of government. Author PJ Larkin can be quoted saying that this war "was a mixture of religious crusade in favour of one idealogy or the other... striking out for advantage or expansion not only in Europe but all over the world."
Given the fluid and dynamic nature of the war on terror as it has been presented, the United States has not been able to pursue one particular defense policy. The policy of defending the world against terror is very sweeping and commits the United States in many areas of the world. At one point, focus was on Iraq, as a haven for terrorists who were supposedly promulgating the war from Baghdad. This allowed obliviousness to fomenting in Afghanistan, which now might be where our focus is on at this time. The reality is that both defense and foreign policy have had to be malleable and somewhat pliable because the justification for the war ended up constricting the hopes of definite and static foreign policy.
Clemenceau resented Wilson’s generous attitude towards Germany and Lloyd George’s desire to not treat Germany too harshly. He said “if they British are so anxious to appease Germany they should look overseas and make colonial, naval or commercial concessions”. These disagreements left the big three unsatisfied and ultimately left them with a weak mere shadow of a perhaps great treaty due to their own arrogance and. It contained many faults and weaknesses. The treaty of Versailles greatly humiliated Germany forcing it to accept soul responsibility for the war.
The Europeans were doubtful because of all the failed attempts the US has made during the War of 1812. Latin America was also doubtful and ignored the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine addresses American concerns for peace and safeties by implying that if the European colonies begin to settle in the western hemisphere that the threat of European control will be accessible and possible. Also the Doctrine stresses that if the European countries ignore the orders of the Doctrine, America will take action which also implies that the peace and safety of America is at risk. The Monroe Doctrine continued the policy of neutrality established by President Washington by reassuring the
Bin Laden has become the spectre haunting the West, the architect not just of 9/11 but of a worldwide assault on Western values and way of life. It is a myth that has helped fuel wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, destabilize Pakistan, reinforce autocracies in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and elsewhere, and erode rights and liberties, from the imposition of draconian domestic anti-terror laws to the obscenity of extraordinary rendition to the international affront that is Guantanamo Bay. Bin Laden’s legacy has not simply been the murderous ideology he has promoted or the wanton slaughter he has unleashed. It has also been the undermining in the West of those very values that the ‘war on terror’ supposedly seeks to defend. The real challenge to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and its medieval, terror-laden theology, has come not from the West’s war on terror but from the Arab Spring, from the revolts that have shaken the region from Tunisia to Egypt to Yemen to Syria.
The first article by the senator had a few things that I felt were not correct. He came up with lots of reasons for going to Iraq and how we went for the wrong reasons but he does not mention the reason we went there in the first place, which was to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein from power. Throughout the editorial the senator also seems to somewhat villainies the U.S. I don’t believe a U.S. senator should make his country that he serves look bad even though others feel that it is ok to do so. Lastly, he wants to get across the message that the U.S. is at war with Muslims and not Iraq, which I believe is completely untrue.
During of which, he displayed a passive acceptance of injustice, and went on to discredit those indictments. Even before he came into office, Clinton's morals and integrity came into question. Americans saw these questionable qualities he had, but chose to ignore them and hope for the best. The charms of Bill Clinton may have wooed voters to vote for him, but at the end the passive acceptance of injustice proved to be a crucial mistake. Having morality issues did not hinder his ability to gain an office at the White House, but the flaws that Clinton possessed proved a problem : "The 'character issue' stemmed from allegations of infidelity which Clinton refuted in a television interview in which he and Hillary
Jensen makes the reader take a look as to why he or she may have chosen their position on the war and how their decision was determined. This book is a raw reality that asks the question why is it that we at war and is it worth it. In the beginning Jensen brings the reader back to that gruesome day when almost every citizen was in a state of shock and fear. The mentality that we lived in a great and powerful country was altered because terrorist were now able to show the world that when your guard even the worst can happen to the “greatest nation.” That mentality was definitely refuted by the media by their comments on how the response would have to be “massive.” It felt as though America was a child on the playground that was being teased by its not so friendly classmates and they had to show their other counterparts that they were not weak and will retaliate dirtier and harder than those that hurt them. The mindset was that the “United States had been the target of an atrocity, a crime that would make it easy to lash out with massive violence (pg.
However, it is clear that the magnitude of certain acts significantly determines whether or not that act can be forgiven. American society proved to be hesitant to forgive, because congress declared war on terrorism shortly afterward, and our troops continue to fight and die in the Middle East. As previously stated earlier in this paper, forgiveness is a concept that is only attributed effectively f there is a spiritual healing experience for the victim and genuine remorse from the perpetrator; however, as Moshe Bejski puts it, “does repentance alone justify and bring about forgiveness and allows crimes to be forgotten?” (Bejski) Collectively, American society may have forgiven the attackers and since the incident occurred more than a decade ago we could look upon the draconic incident and contemplate it with some detachment. However, the American population as a whole may have forgiven or have pushed aside the harsh memories of that day, but close family members of those affected may not be so quick for mercy. So we are back to the overwhelming question that has been the focus
Humanitarian intervention and the spread of human rights can be recognised as progressively challenging the nation based order of the order and adjusting it to embrace universal values and individual human rights. The international realm has persisted to stress the significance of non-intervention, however, it is arguable that military involvement must be legalised in disregarding the sovereignty rule in cases where states have succumbed to civil disorder or when a regime massively infringes its citizen’s rights. As the United Nations prohibits war, excluding self-defence and united action with the approval of the United Nations Security Council, humanitarian intervention produces major dilemmas for the international realm which is established on nation rights such as sovereignty, self rule and the rights to non use of force. Presumably, sovereign nations behave as defenders of their civilian’s protection, however, many human rights activists assert that nations are allowed to act aggressively towards their own population, regarding sovereignty as their authorisation for abuse. Spurring vigorous debate among theorists is the issue as to whether totalitarian nations should be acknowledged as genuine member of the international community and provided with the protection of the non intervention standard, or whether they have forfeited their sovereign rights and ought to be exposed to legitimate intervention.