According to political realism, war is inevitable in an international system where anarchy is the rule. As power-hungry individuals lead their states in pursuit of the national interest, fulfilment of the latter can sometimes only be achieved through conflict or the use of force. Thucydides discusses war and conflict at length in his History of the Peloponnesian War and comes to the conclusion that “What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta.”[9] Here he has identified one of the main reasons for war: fear. As Thucydides sees fear as one of the universal human characteristics leading to an evil human nature and thus evil human behaviour, it can be seen that, for Thucydides, war is an inevitable feature of the international system. With the Balance of Power destabilising, which, according to Thucydides, is the only means to achieve peace, the growth of power in Athens caused the Spartans to feel more and more insecure and thus they started to prepare to defend themselves.
The continued power grab will destroy the capitalist system shackling the limbs of the free market. The regulation imposed creates factions limiting the ease of market entry. The environment that our American business calls home must remain competitive assuring quality goods to consumers while encouraging technological advancements. The path our federal government is currently on is a path of non-democratic regulation that is a threat to the growth and prosperity of our country. It is simply a matter of the true meaning of the Constitution, specifically the commerce clause that must be addressed.
Secondly America can be blamed for starting the cold war through its foreign policy. America’s foreign policy was inherently imperialistic it needed foreign markets for investment purposes in order for it to survive. Hence it could on achieve it aggressive demands for business markets by controlling the East .This could only be achieved by eliminating communism. This provoked the soviets because according to
There is a large debate into which factors where the most important in the origins and sowing the seeds that led to the Cold War in 1945-6. Many argue that the differences in ideology were the main cause, as the US and the Soviet Union had almost polar opposite views on how their country should be run, and therefore capitalist and communist countries could not co exist without tension. However, it is also argued that the personalities of the leaders of the three countries are a significant contribution to the Cold warfare – Roosevelt/Truman of the United States, Stalin of the USSR and Churchill of the United Kingdom. This is because the mentalities of the leaders often clashed. It is also debated that national interests of the individual countries during and post World War 2 created tensions between the nations of US and the USSR, because they each saw the others aims as a threat to their own national safety.
American Government 4/18/2012 The Evolution vs. Devolution of the U.S. Federal Government Introduction The extent of control the government has in the American people’s lives and how well it represents those people is what sparked a revolution that gave birth to the United States, and the same debate also led a civil war that tore our country apart. As you can see this topic is one many Americans feel strongly about. These debates led to the distinction of the Federalist vs. the Anti- Federalist. The Federalist supported a strong central government that could deal with the issues that states might disagree on, essentially moving toward a unification of the states. The Anti-Federalist feared this central government would in time grow into a tyrannical body that the states had fought to get away from.
We have conflicting values protecting our country and the rise of communism. Ideological theorists claim that the Soviets and the Americans so believed in the superiority of their respective values and beliefs that they were willing to fight a cold war to
It appealed to the interests of the general people, and usually went against the interests of those in power. Imperialism is extending one state’s control over to another. So, in other words, a more powerful state taking control of a weaker one. Nationalism leads to imperialism in a direct and indirect way. The powerful state that is producing the goods can force the weaker state
During history it seems that nationalism manifested its self in an era of colapse of bounderies, economic expansion, mas migration, general insecurity, drastic militarisation, which finaly led to war. Nations went to war against all that, in an atempt to preserve the things taken away by the string of events pointed out earlier. The chalenge of modernity forced ancient ethnic groups to find new ways to ensure their survival by obtaining either power sharing or separate states. In general both modernists and nationalist agree that modernism provides the main reasons for nationalist conflicts. In that context globalization has been described either the next logical step from modernism or as a separate event called postmodernity.
Foreign and Defense Policy Everest University Trina Harrison American National Government Instructor: Timothy Mozia July 5, 2014 Many ask to what extent the war on terrorism represents a break with previous United States foreign and defense policy. This question holds a great deal of validity to where we are right now. In order to answer this question, we have to establish why this war on terrorism? Perhaps how it has been addressed is uniquely different from other engagements in U.S. Foreign Policy History. If it is to be believed, this particular war is uniquely different than prior involvements of the United States because of its dynamic nature.
Article VI refutes this ideology. Article VI states that the only people that are allowed to make treaties or exchange foreign policy is the US; a individual state cannot do so. This refutes the Classical Liberal ideology because this makes government bigger. They also believe the purpose of government is to protect a humans life, a humans liberty, and ownership of land and business- anything more, is unnecessary. Article VII states that certain individuals get certain power- to a Classical Liberal power (in theory) should be distributed and shared; a higher power leads to different classes (like the bourgeois) or to more government, this is not a Classical Liberal ideology.