Also the ensuing Wars might well have been averted other major interpretive approach offering far more radical critique of American intentions and behavior. It depicts the United States as a global hegemony, concerned primarily with its own economic expansion (McMahon). They are different in regards to its outcome; the gulf war was quick with minimal losses to the American side, and with a higher indices of approval by the American people at its end. While the Iraq war despite its better outcome when compared to the Vietnam’s legacy, had a higher number of casualties than the Gulf War and with a duration much longer than the Gulf War, driving American public approval of the war to the bottom. Invasion
These developments changed the US policies of brinkmanship and massive retaliations, as these methods only worked while the USA remained militarily superior. The Cuban missile crisis showed how back dated these policies were, something Kennedy’s military advisors failed to notice, his understanding of the dangers and his controlled response helped save the USA from the most destructive war ever seen. However the military assured destruction that came with the power of the nuclear era forced the USA and USSR into the standoff of Cuba. This crisis was inevitable and the only way of bringing the arms race to the end. However the driving
However McCauley, source 9, stresses that US economic strength and interests created and ‘informal American empire in Europe’, therefore increasing the divide. Deteriorating relations between the two superpowers cannot be attributed primarily to Stalin’s errors. Rather, US economic interests played the most important role in the development of the Cold War in the years 1945-49. Stalin’s own errors and personality undoubtedly played a key role in developing the Cold War, this is emphasised in source 7. Tony Judt argues that Stalin ruled with ‘uncompromising rigidity and confrontational tactics’, this is somewhat supported by source 8 as it highlights that the ‘personality of Stalin’ was a significant internal factor in the USSR.
The war had created the division of two superpowers; The Soviet Union and The United States. After 1945, the United States had become the leading power due to it’s military strength and economic advantages after the war and Soviet Union play it’s role to challenge the state’s power (Young & Kent: 2) due to it’s ideology of communism and wanted to expand their influence globally, in which the United States wanted to prevent this from happening because their idea was absolutely conflicted with the Soviet Union; capitalism (Young & Kent: 6). These two countries reshaped Europe and the world. In contrast, World War II also weakened Britain’s and France’s powers because both of these countries faced a devastated loss by the war especially Britain. Likewise, both of the powers had to dismantle their colonies and ended their overseas and territorial empire.
War has then become a natural extension of this role, and whether it is defined as just or unjust is determined by its effect on the position of the US and its allies. Inevitably, all civilizations have to deal with war, whether purposefully waging it or defending against it. World history is filled with bloody conflicts between states, the results of which have changed the way the world interacts. Our country was even formed as a result of a war against colonial oppression. At the time it was endlessly debated as to whether going to war with the British was the right thing to do, but it was eventually decided that it was necessary in order to gain our independence.
How far has USA’s role in world affairs developed since 1929? USA has been a superpower nation and especially in the 1900s, their decisions have affected the world greatly and bought about change. However USA’s attitudes to world affairs have not been constant throughout. The USA’s foreign policy during the 1920s was called isolationism. The USA did not want to get involved in foreign affairs and foreign wars, especially since WW1 where the people feared another “European death march” so they rejected joining the League of Nations despite the fact that USA was the country who put forward the idea at the Treaty of Versailles.
(Haass, 2009) If war is the only answer to save lives, yes it is justifiable not matter the time or the place. When innocent people are being used as pawns for some deranged individual's advantage. Yes war is justifiable. With this reason being by far the most important, according to Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, the first Iraq war was justifiable, the second was not. Haass argued that "the United States could have done more to contain Saddam though strengthening sanctions.
The U.S. is considered a “superpower” to other nations and its military forces are often involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. In an article entitled The Globalization of Politics: American Foreign Policy for a New Century, authors Lindsay and Daalder observe that “[a] growing perception that Washington cares only about its own interests and is willing to use its muscle to get its way has fueled a worrisome gap between U.S. and European attitudes. European elites increasingly criticize the United States as being morally, socially, and culturally retrograde— especially in its perceived embrace of the death penalty, predatory capitalism, and fast food and mass entertainment.” (2003). Despite the European elites’ opinion of U.S. military involvement in global issues, the general attitude regarding their use of force for the betterment of other societies is not that far behind the U.S. acceptance rate of seventy-five-percent. According to the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project (2012), seventy-percent of Brits condone the use of military force to maintain order in other countries.
This all meant the league failed to stop Italy from invading the Greek island of Corfu even though Greece asked for help. The Corfu incident was seen as a serious failure for the league. It showed that powerful nations could still bully a less powerful neighbour (Greece was a small, weak country with no powerful friends on the council) G. Scott In 1973 wrote: “the settlement made a nasty smell. The Greeks were bitter; the assembly felt it had been degraded. Mussolini appeared to have triumphed in his assertion that where a nation was powerful enough, it was justified in using force to further its interests and the league had no right to interfere” this quote is relevant as it is true the fact that the league had no right to interfere what so
such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, China, and North Korea were communist’s states with the influence of the USSR having an impact; it could be argued that the crisis didn’t need to prove that containment had failed. The presidents after Truman attempted to uphold containment but did not succeed as well as they could have. Containment had failed as the crisis did not have enough commitment from Kennedy, therefore the policy and Truman’s doctrine had failed. The crisis ended with Cuba still being communist, the only real success for America was that the missiles had been removed, America did not need to remove their Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Castro was wary of Khrushchev; the actual fact that Cuba was still as communist state was not focused upon enough. Containment may have of failed and been made evident with the Cuban missile crisis however it led to a growing awareness of the need to create some control over the nuclear arms race by placing restrictions on nuclear tests.