The Helsinki agreements recognised Soviet control over Eastern Europe because it dictated confrontation and expansion abroad. Russia promised to respect human rights but Brezhnev didn't have the intentions for honouring the human rights but the U.S needed Détente to occur because they believed the Soviet Union was strong and going to get stronger. During these agreement SS20s were being targeted at Western Europe Salt II lasted from 1972 to 1979. It was a progression from Salt I trying to provide limits on weapon systems and to put restraints on future developments. MIRV systems were finally limited for both the U.S and Soviet Union.
As in the case of Christianity it would be necessary to have further passages from the Qur’an on the issue of wealth and merchants to have a more clear understanding on Islam’s origins views. However, from the sources given it is clear that Christianity had a more negative view towards wealth than that of Islam. As time progressed major changes occurred for both Christianity and Islam as seen in Documents 3, 4, 5, and 7. This change can be seen in Reginald’s writing about St. Godric. He speaks that Godric chose the life a peddler, buying items of small price, but than selling these items for a greater price.
Oil dependent countries, often Western, must remain in favour with oil rich supplying nations such as in the Middle East and Russia. It is this need that often determines foreign policy or influences political decisions. At present, Saudi Arabia has strong links with the USA and other Western countries, and as a result oil flows from one to the other. However, any changes in leadership transition, economic reform or acts of terrorism could see this arrangement change. Under Saddam Hussein’s rule, Iraq faced UN economic sanctions that constrained the oil industry making trade very difficult.
One disadvantage to Truman’s decision to support Israel in becoming a sovereign country is that U.S. relations with the Arabs can be affected. Also, creating a partition in Palestine in order to create a country for Jews would cause anti-Americanism. Another con to helping Israel become a sovereign country is that it would require U.S. troops to enforce the partition. This would decrease the number of troops standing by that the U.S needs to have. Not only that, but the partition violates both U.S. and U.N principles of self-determination.
The religious persecution settlers experienced in their homelands and, for some, again upon arrival in British North America, served to shape the cultural landscape. For some religious refugees, improved economic opportunity played a secondary role in their decision to emigrate. For other colonists, economic opportunity was the sole motivation for setting sail to the New World. The societal values developed by settlers who worshipped the pursuit of the almighty coin would contrast drastically with those in pursuit of freedom to worship the Almighty. A comparative overview of the religious and socio-economic histories of the Chesapeake, New England and Mid-Atlantic colonies shows the evolved societies contrasted culturally as a direct result of diverse local economies and divergent religious influences manifested in the establishment of unique church state paradigms.
(Davidson et al., 2008) The anti-imperialist had much to say about the expansion of America to foreign soils. They did not feel it was right to march in and take what did not rightfully belong to the United States. Causing bloodshed was not a way to take control over another country if at all. They were upset to see that Americans felt it was their right through God to reach out and teach the heathens religion and step in to control on racial grounds that “white Arians” were the dominating race. “The United States have always protested against the doctrine of international law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong.
On the other side, the Safavids were slightly tolerant. When the Isma’il came into power, he named Shi’a Islam as the religion of hid empire- with this it caused many wars, but change the path of the empire, affecting what we now know as Iran forever. With that, it’s safe to say that all of them enjoyed conquering new states, though not necessarily for the same reason. The Ottoman Empire was mainly interested in conquering, just to spread Islam. Their religion was their inspiration, whereas the other had less of the incentive.
The real challenge to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and its medieval, terror-laden theology, has come not from the West’s war on terror but from the Arab Spring, from the revolts that have shaken the region from Tunisia to Egypt to Yemen to Syria. The desire of the peoples across the Arab world for democratic change has not only humbled autocrats, it has also marginalized the jihadists who have played no part in the popular movements. These uprisings, and the hope that they engender, will transform the world far more than will bin Laden’s
At first, it wasn’t international to hinder the freedoms of rising nations, nor to exercise surveillance over foreign power relations. Yet, due to cultural factors regarding the increasing importance of the United States as a world power, the need of the doctrine changed course for expansion. Regarding their foreign policy, this drastic shift in ideology simultaneously affected American
"Soviet, American and UN diplomatic efforts regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict in the period December 1968 - September 1973" The Soviet Union, the United States and the UN tried to influence leaders of Egypt and Israel, and to some extent Jordan and Syria, to reach diplomatic solutions and finally put an end to the interminable Arab-Israeli Conflict. However, the USSR and the US had different reasons for getting involved in this region and both were acting out of their own selfish interest rather than a peaceful solution. Jerome Slater describes the situation as follows: “The Arab-Israeli conflict became entangled in the global rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union”. [1] It was only the third party, the UN, who offered diplomatic efforts that did not serve for personal interests but rather a more neutral aim as solution. Yet, the United Nations showed lack of strength and influence as they did not manage to reach any settlement.