Harry Williamson Response Paper Letter from a Birmingham jail In the article Disagreements About Civil Disobedience Divide America's Anti War Movement we are presented with several views of civil disobedience present in todays society. The sole goal of these organizations is to end the war in Iraq because the members believe what is happening overseas is unjust and immoral. The feud between the organizations is simple; what are the best steps to help end the war? The cultural relativism aspect of this situation is that America (our current day society) wants war with another country, these two organizations are attempting to change that view. On one side you have people like Patrick Reinsborough who is an Organizer of Direct Action Against the War.
the “bad guys” (Germany and their allies). This has officially removed every obstacle in front of President Wilson’s way to join the war because as he had said before, he did not want to be sided with a tyrant, Russia. All he has to do is say the words and in a second we would be in the War, helping not only our own country, but our long good friends Britain as well. It is not difficult to realize that we don’t have the best army and navy, and that we mobilize slowly, but this is yet another reason for why we should start right here, right now. If we are successful to mobilizing quickly and having a military draft, our army would be almost unstoppable to other nations.
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.
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.
Wilson stated, “No people must be forced under sovereignty under it does not wish to live. (Wilson, p. 71)” However, for Wilson’s plan to work scores of Germans in Prussia and in the West had to be displaced. Even though some areas were given plebiscites, he still had forced his vision on them. The creation of Yugoslavia out of many small ethnic states created a potential powder keg. As well, the only way that the Wilson plan would have survived the political intrigue of the Europeans was either through a league that had real teeth, or a super power willing to intervene as a worldwide police officer.
. Was the Reichstag Fire more important than the Enabling Act in allowing Hitler to consolidate power? The activities of the SA were to make sure Nazi meetings were safe and undisturbed. Besides that, the SA is supposed to disrupt other political meetings and support Hitler and the Nazis. Finally, the SA’s activity is also to put fear on the street to get votes for the next elections.
The idea of “containment” and not letting the Soviet Union gain influence and control of the region was perhaps the biggest and only factor for the United States assistance in South Vietnam. In its quest for world supremacy, the US felt it had to do anything in its power to ensure that they would remain on top, even if it meant fighting the Soviets in proxy wars like that of Korea and Vietnam. From a strategic and political view, the war was an absolutely necessary and even though many feel the US had lost, they were better off than had they just remained passive and allowed Communism to spread. More than anything, the Vietnam War was a message to the rest of the world that the US could, and more importantly would, engage in conflict in attempt to ensure that democracy remain the prevalent political and economical ideology existent across the
Gun control reform will ensure that there will be further stringent checks to decrease further incidents of violence. Reform may not be the total answer to the problem of mass shootings, but it should be part of any meaningful response to so many tragedies. The bottom line is current gun control laws are inadequate. People have been taken from this earth in the shooting massacres all over the United States. No amount of debating will bring back those
Some people think that going to war is the only way to establish a democracy and end terrorism in the Middle East (Friedman 49). Having a democracy gives people an outlet to expressing themselves. It also gives them a voting process. The terrorists see the United states as a leader for the west. They think the United States is using diverse and devious means to destroy them.
US wanted to focus on itself and the problems they faced within the country, never mind foreign problems. It would be a citizens surprise that the United States became a world superpower at one point and was becoming involved much more in global events and issues. Some believe that the United States shifted from isolationism to being involved in war for self-defense reasons while other say its a combination of economic reasons and self-defense. It began due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and ever since then the US has not been for isolationism. The country then feared the spread of communism which lead into more global involvement.