The Middle Eastern should see its own nation as a threat and not that the United States is a threat to them. There have been many chaos and destruction among the Islamic country. Many of the Citizens that reside there fail to realize how self destruction one’s own country matters more than destruction from another country. The Middle East is not advanced like the United States in the aspect of military weapons. One can easily see how the Unites States poses as a threat towards them.
Though a war over government preferences is arguably a farfetched reason to wage war, it was apparent that these ideologies had a huge influence on lifestyle. One of the two possible verdicts that derive from the question, “Who was to blame for The Cold War?” is that the
It was also used as a defence mechanism in case of future attack. The race can also said to have produced numerous treaties between the superpowers, and these factors seem to suggest that the arms race had a stabilising effect and did not threaten world peace. However, it is also argued that it made the world a more dangerous place, and consequently threatened world peace. The word ‘dangerous’ is defined as an unsafe threat to the world and human population. This is demonstrated through the questionable policies such as Brinkmanship, Massive retaliation, and how the culture of paranoia and secrecy caused both sides to constantly create more nuclear weapons to feel protected against the other side.
Why Did the U.S Go to War with Iraq in 2003? Iraq war is one of the most debatable U.S military conflicts of the past decades. Different opinions exist about the propriety of this war. Nevertheless, it is likely that that the U.S intervention into Iraq was a justified measure, as it helped to prevent more serious and dangerous conflicts on the Middle East. The official reasons to enter the Iraq conflict were freeing Iraq people, planting democracy, and destroying the Iraq nuclear potential.
This administration was not entering into this war without its own interests addressed since they received $6 billion (US) from Kuwait in support for the United States forces. The USA had its own interests in mind and the most important to them was not the safe return of all Kuwaiti land but rather the oil with which Kuwait would owe them for returning their land. This war was also known as the Desert Storm. Desert Storm was not only about Iraq since it affected many countries around Iraq. Some have suggested that Israel felt threatened as a result of the power which Sadaam and Iraq had gained and that is what brought the United States into the war.
In order to pursue a long-term solution for the United States-Iranian conflict, the United States must attempt to engage Sun Tzu's principles and apply them to the current situation. United States-Iran relations have been turbulent in the past, cumulating in the current state of affairs. Past indiscretions, such as the United States' support of the unpopular Iranian ruler, the Shah, set the scene for continued commotion in policy in regard to the countries' relations. In opposition to Sun Tzu's guidance, praising the ability of a general to capture a city without laying siege to it and discouraging the act of besieging an area, the United States has enacted strict sanctions against Iran, in 1997 specifying that "virtually all trade and investment activities with Iran by U.S. persons, wherever located, are prohibited" (US Department of the Treasury). Though the purpose of these sanctions is said to be " punishing the Iranian regime in the hope of forcing it to comply with international rules over its disputed nuclear programme," it mainly hurts the Iranian civilians, weakening only the ordinary members of the country rather than those with significant political power (Dehghan).
It is not acceptable to go beyond legal, moral, and/or ethical boundaries when the nation is at a risky time of war, but only on certain conditions. Some issues discussing this are the neutralism of U.S., the Executive Order #9066 declared by FDR, and the decision to drop the bomb. These issues greatly impacted America’s standing in the world and history immensely. It was recorded into history for the mistakes that we did and the damage we caused. The U.S. struggled with each issue and did what they thought was right, even if damage was caused.
I could blame the defeat which would have been the result of my action on him and come out as Peacemaker…But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.” However, this idealistic standpoint was mere propaganda. In private, President Nixon would favour a more militant and aggressive approach. This contradictory position not only exposed Nixon’s vulnerability to public opinion, but also his disillusion and misunderstanding of the complexities of such a war. It is imperative to understand the factors which influenced President Nixon’s strategies and decision making during the Vietnam War.
In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. And it’s also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. Even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians -- where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities, for example, that pose no threat to us; times when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.” (President Obama, 2013) There are several international events in the past that can be traced back to a foreign policy created after the Civil War. * Platt Amendment of 1901, which allowed the U.S. to militarily intervene in Cuba whenever revolution threatened, would be one of the earlier actions that serve as an example of the U.S. interfering when we were not wanted. There was a lot of resentment from Cubans because they argued that it took away their independence.
By displaying this collection of extensive research, the author hopes to communicate to the reader that the efforts of Halliburton are deleterious in a multitude of ways, and that its contract with the military needs to be stopped. Granted, with the help from Halliburton, the military enjoys some luxury of not having to directly provide essential needs for the soldiers. However, this book outlines the management corruption and overall excessive costs of contracting with Halliburton. Also in his book, Pratap Chatterjee discusses the relevance of the Global War on Terror and how it interrelates with the operations of Halliburton. In the last 20 years, Halliburton has been heavily involved in helping the military.