“Ending the War Against Japan: Science, Morality and the Atomic Bomb” Summary The author of this essay gives three different options to end World War II. Option one states that the United States should make peace with japan. The United States knows that japan is very close to surrendering but has not surrendered because they are afraid that we will put their emperor on trail as a war criminal. The Japanese feel that the emperor is a descendent from the gods and they will do everything to protect him. If the United States is clear that they do not want to make him a criminal but instead a national symbol then maybe the Japanese might agree and surrender.
Iraq was left out on its own to fend off the world. This war turned out to be Sadaam vs. the world. Countries felt threatened by the mere existence of this man Sadaam considering him a menace to society. Sadaam proved over again that he was after land first invading Iran and then taking over Kuwait. When Sadaam took over Kuwait he was after the Kuwaiti Oil.
Sharla Christie 11-07-05 Speech analysis In either an eerie episode repeated history or a blatant replication of a successful speech of the past, President George W. Bush’s June 2005 speech discussing Iraq and the War on Terror used numerous propaganda techniques in an attempt to convince the American people that peace can be created through war (Bush, 2005). In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s persuasive State of the Union address included a section on southeastern Asia, justifying the continuing war in Vietnam (Johnson, 1967). The two speeches are so closely aligned in message and often in exact wording, it seems impossible Bush’s speech was written without reference to Johnson’s. Of course, Bush cannot afford to have any transference of Johnson’s Vietnam debacle to the current situation; therefore, presenting the format and ideas as original is the first and inclusive incidence of omission. The overall threat both presidents insist exists is that “terrorists,” Osama bin Laden in particular (Bush, 2005), or “aggressors,” a faceless enemy simply referred to as “he” (Johnson, 1967), will “threaten the peace of the entire region and perhaps the world” (Johnson, 1967), “by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror” (Bush, 2005).
The gulf war actually reversed an over decade long trend of neutrality. “American foreign policy toward Iraq during the 1980s and up to the invasion of Kuwait was conciliatory, guided by the belief that the U.S. shared geopolitical and strategic interests with Saddam Hussein. America's primary interest was restraining Iran and maintaining a balance of power in the region favorable to American interests, particularly oil, technology, and agriculture. Secondary interests included the security of Israel and the containment of Soviet influence.” Scholar’s like Karen Mingst and Ivan Arreguin-Toft would
As a continuation of his introdution, Colbert sarcastically asks for someone to pinch him because he may be in a dream being so close to Bush. He then continues and tells someone to shoot him in the face, a reference to Dick Cheney accidentally shooting someone he was hunting with. After these introductory jokes, Colbert got down to business with his roasting of President Bush. First, Colbert compares Bush to himself in the sense that they both go straight from the gut and do not pay attention to the facts. He then makes a joke about the government being best when governed least, and states that the government Bush has set up in Iraq is excellent by those standards.
First, he became a more focused and more disciplined version of Bush when it came to counter terrorism policy: He killed Osama bin Laden, pulverized al Qaeda, and has so far prevented another attack on the continental United States. Protecting the homeland is the organizing principle of a nation's foreign policy. If you can't do that, you really don't need a foreign policy. Second, Obama committed himself to (and is succeeding in) extricating America from the two longest wars in our history -- wars that were among our most pointless, given what we sacrificed and what we've gotten in return. Third, he kept us out of new ones.
Christopher Hitchens – Neoconservatism Christopher Hitchens describes himself as an anti-theist and a believer in the philosophical values of the enlightenment. Dr. Hitchen’s became an activist against Islam when Ayatullah Kohmeini declared a fatwa against his personal friend Salman Rushdie. This event led him to join the neo-conservative side on foreign policy and the war on terrorism. Dr. Hitchens believes that the war on terrorism is both just and necessary. He backs this statement up with numerous facts and hypothetical situations that could’ve happen if the US government had not invaded Iraq.
Richard Nixon’s election to Presidency of the United States in 1968, marked a turning point in American foreign policy and a new strategic approach to the war in Vietnam. It was a war he had inherited from his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. Domestic support for the war had diminished significantly, with national outpourings of opposition. This prompted Nixon to make his famous ‘silent majority’ speech, where he outlined his position on Vietnam, “After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. 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.
Being a war-opponent and social activist, Howard Zinn’s most likely intention in writing “Unsung Heroes” was to educate people about the mistakes (and deliberate lies) that are, in his opinion, very common in the perception of American history. Also, he likely wanted to direct attention towards the un-credited but “true” heroes who may not be shining enough to fit the common definition of a hero, but who have made meaningful contributions and therefore deserve to be remembered. In any case, they are people who are not responsible for killings of native Americans or the suppressing of minorities. Despite the popularity of Zinn’s views and of “A Peoples History of the United States”, there is an opinion that Zinn is overly pessimistic in his interpretation of the past. Further, some people complain, as he states himself, that they feel “thoroughly alienated and depressed” after reading the book.
If the sole reason for war was to capture Sadaam and his officials, this would then be unjust. At the time of the war, the war met another requirement of the doctrine; it had legitimate authority, George W. Bush. As long as a legit source declares the war, approval from the UN is unnecessary. Therefore there was an official declaration of war, showing