Kennedy and the USA was committed to containment meaning the US foreign policy was predicated by the commitment to protect freedom wherever it was under threat which was applied perfectly to South Vietnams situation. This level of commitment became particularly important in view of the USA’s need to preserve creditability as a protector especially of newly independent states like South Vietnam which is why the US involvement was increased. But Kennedy also needed to stand against communism in order to promote his own political image which was more important than simply just protecting South Vietnam. The involvement in South Vietnam was consistent with the USA’s long term policy of establishing a form of economic imperialism in order to strengthen its position as a global power. So it can be questioned that even if South Vietnam were able to protect itself than the USA would have still intervened to strengthen America’s global power suggesting Kennedy didn’t increase US involvement to protect the south but to benefit America’s position.
Others say that the U.S. involvement wasn’t to protect democracy but to protect our economic interests in the nearby South Pacific and Middle East. These controversies are where interpretations of history can be formed but the facts of history are always clear, the United States adapted their constitution in 1787 and the Vietnam War was fought from 1959 to
This should allow one to reach an informed conclusion. In order to answer the first part of the question, this paper will now proceed to explain the causes and major events of the cold war according to the revisionist approach. In this, the focus must be on the revisionist approach first, and not the, to be discussed events. In the revisionist approach USA is seen as driving force of Cold War. The Soviet Union is seen defensive in its actions and its policies are argued to be a response to those of America (Lundestad, 2010:9).
How far did the introduction of Western Style reforms and the use of foreigners assist Peter the Great in strengthening his absolute rule? Peter the Great was influenced by the instability in Russia he had witnessed in Childhood, and was determined to expunge the subversive element of his population which could precipitate a resurgence of this anti-authoritarian violence. Further aims included the unification of Russia, extension of territory and its defence against the Poles, Tatars and Swedes. This required securing his absolutism, as internal security is a prerequisite of an effective foreign policy. Although foreigners and western-style changes did not cover the entire scope of his developments, they certainly appear to have been a fundamental
Kennedy VS. Eisenhower Leffler VS. Schulzinger In many cases a presidency can be decided by the ability of an individual or administration to steer a country in a new, more positive direction. Presidential campaigns slogans are typically inspired by the hope for something new and promising. These promises and guarantees flood the media with implications and expectations of better days to come. Though it is conceivable that these days will approach, the transition from one administration to the next is frequently a daunting task. These difficult transformations become even more problematic during times of war and international conflict.
Who was the greater ruler: Alexander II or Alexander III In establishing which was the greater ruler out of Alexander II or Alexander III it is first important to consider the aims and successes of each one. Whilst many would say Alexander III’s stablisation of Russia through strict reform was necessary, it can be argued that on the grander scale the modernisation of Russia was a far more important end goal, and one that would solve many of the inherent problems such as famine and low production, unlike Alexander III’s staunch Conservatism. Although Alexander III’s programmes of Russification can be seen as important in creating a sense of national identity, it is nonetheless necessary to remember that this on the whole created more of a sense of disunity, as is the case with many of his anti-modernising reforms. Repressing of the national identities of groups such as the Ukrainians and Poles only strengthened the revolutionary resolve and anti-Russian fervour, and the entire concept seemed only to have the short-term goal in mind. However the major issue with Alexander III lies not with his policies themselves but more with the ideology that lay behind them.
The United States was able to fight communism without having to put U.S forces in action, with support to anti-soviet rebels. In the short term, this proved successful of removing communistic powers and formation of U.S-friendly governments. However, the long term goals of were hampered, as governments that formed usually involved a militaristic regime or total anarchy. It also left many people to resent the United States and later opposed to U.S policies. Especially in Afghanistan, where the U.S cut and ran after the Soviet defeat, not willing to establish some sort of democracy in the country.
Question 1: Part A) Since the advent of the North American Free Trade Agreement transactions across the border between the United State and Mexico have become more commonplace. This is not to imply that the cultural divide has diminished, as both countries take pride in their individuality. When working across borders, as is the case in “Mexico Venture”, taking account of cultural faux pas’ is of utmost importance; these negotiations involve risks that are not present in domestic partnerships. In this instance, Morgan, has to understand Martinez’s position to protect his interests, specifically those of cultural importance. As evidenced by Trompenaars, Morgan is presumably walking into a trap, as the backgrounds of our protagonists
“For each, it should have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. We should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help” (Grumet, n.d.). The United States, along with the international community, needs to make a commitment on a long-term basis to secure and stabilize Afghanistan so that governments have a reasonable opportunity at improving the lives of the Afghan people. This country cannot again become the sanctuary that it was (and maybe still is) for terrorism and international
The document guides countries who are being suppressed to move towards revolution even today. The Declaration of Independence is relevant today because it is based upon timeless values and sets guidelines for old and new governments. In essence, the Declaration of Independence itself is timeless. Some may say the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant, but to myself and many others it is just as important