In fact, when questioned about the names of his flight squadron members, and he gave the Vietnamese names of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers (423). The torturers can be easily fooled because they cannot reliably verify the accuracy of the information they get from a torture victim. Therefore, the problem of unreliable intelligence deals a big blow against torture. Many nations, including the United States, made torturing illegal, but if America tortures a soldier from other nations, they can do the same back to America (424). If American troops held another nation’s soldier captive, the enemy may feel they have the right to do the same.
Source G is unreliable as it is sacrificial, and may be partisan. It is clearly aimed at a republican audience or neutrals in order to portray Kennedy in a bad light by using simple techniques. It is inadequate as it is confined to a limited period of time. It is a simple cartoon and is biased against Kennedy quite profusely. Source G’s content shows us how people felt about him and that people didn’t feel he was perfect during his time as president only after his assassination.
Opponents say that the Americans only purpose for entering the gulf war was to protect its access to gulf oil. They accuse the country of not standing by the democratic ideals that it says it adheres to. Critics bring up the fact that the United States government supports dictators in smaller countries to further its objectives. D’Souza argues that American domination is much different than previous empires in that we do not sustain this with force. He asserts that Americas influence is the source of its power.
Many people are diverse when it comes to the cold war and each believed the other was the cause and the start. USA believed that Russia was a threat and thus tried to make out that she was the true villain, yet Russia believed that it was the USA’s doing in which provoked a war full of rivalry and suspicion. However, which side really did start it? Many factors during the stages of the cold war were often taken out of proportion however each side convinced its own people that it was the other sides own being. For example, when the USA dropped the atomic bomb on Japan the Russians were particularly frightened of what this meant for them.
They are isolated paranoid bigots for many reasons, not just because they are reactionary. Populists were off by themselves, isolated from everyone else. They isolated themselves from the society actually decided their fate. The populists didn’t think about fitting themselves into the bigger picture. They were paranoid because they believe that history is just one big conspiracy against them and out to get them.
That one could love America yet dissent from the policies of the particular government of the moment, that one could be against a war on Vietnam without being pro-Communist or pro-North Vietnamese, was lost to many in the political passions of the time. Similarly in the McCarthyism witch-hunts of the Fifties, people who dissented from McCarthy's excesses were accused by him, and many others, of being anti-American and pro-Communist, as if McCarthy and America were identical. So with Socrates. His attacks on the current democratic regime were mistaken for attacks on democracy as such and confused with disloyalty. His friendships with traitors and anti-democrats made this mistake almost impossible to
Trotsky advocated a permanent revolution with Stalin didn’t want. Stalin viewed Trotsky’s ideas as a direct attack on him so he attacked swiftly. This resulted in Trotsky getting kicked out of the Bolshevik party because of his left wing views. This links into my next point in how Stalin became the favourite to replace Lenin and defeated the rest of the candidates. Luck played a big part into how Stalin defeated the left side of the party.
But should multipolarity be feared or should it be welcomed? If you are a part of the Realist school of thought then you would think that multipolary is a bad thing because as a realist, you believe that people are inherently selfish and will not do anything to help the fellow man. So it is also believed that countries will only work to better their interests, and with so many countries competing to become the new world super power, they could come into conflict. Most of these countries do have nuclear weapons so if conflict breaks out it would be very dangerous. Realist also believe that when the cold war the world was the safest that it could have been because the two super powers of the world the USA and the USSR were at logger heads which meant that all of the other countries in the world did not want anything to happen because these countries could destroy the world, so other countries watched what was happening between the USA and the USSR.
If it is for selfish, self-serving motives, or to serve in an undeserved, destructive way for others, it is not justified. In the political arena and on a governmental level there is no justification to tell a white lie. When lies are told to a nation the government undermines the society. The lies that are being told by the government can’t constitute as white lies because they are dealing with matters of great magnitude. In the reading “Lies” by John Crawford we read the story of a soldier who is back to war after a leave and he is not only lying to other solders but he is lying to himself.
Was the League of Nations a failure? The League of Nations is thought to be a failure by many, because of hard irony and limitation on military might. The League accomplished very little in stopping wars and conflicts while having very little power. Often they just shook fists at ruthless, evil dictators such as Germany’s Adolf Hitler and his conquests, without intervening. Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States.