* Ideology Ideology is a system of concepts regarding how things ought to be organised. Teams of individuals could have competitive thoughts and ideations, this will cause conflict. An example of this can be the cold war, in which the USA and also the Soviet Union had competitive political and economic ideologies after the world war ll. * Politics This issue is split into two areas, International Politics and Internal Politics. International politics is engulfed with potential sources of war and conflict, like border disputes and disputes over territory, as shown within the current conflicts in India, Pakistan
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.
This too was against the advice of knowledgeable people such as Stimson. Decisions such as this one created a greater distance between the United States and Russia; giving Russia substantial reason to enter a war against the US. Truman continued in a downward spiral, setting himself and the United States up for a war with each action he took. The Truman Doctrine served as Truman’s declaration for war, after Stalin and Churchill already issued theirs. Aside from the general aspects of the doctrine, Truman used it as a platform to validate a large economic aid program.
This is because it can be interpreted in many ways and may lead to misunderstanding. It has become a messy mixture of written and unwritten elements, it does not carry authority of some other constitutions such as that of the USA, this is due to it’s vague nature. It is also argued that its flexibility allows ‘elective dictatorship’, this is because governments would have the power to pass any law without considering if its constitutional or not. The main reason why the word
For better or worse, The United States has focused its obligations to involving itself with this region of the world. More specifically, the political aspect of these countries in turmoil has been a huge focus of American leaders and foreign policy. Although the extent of involvement is specific to each situation; American involvement has been a major theme of the crises within the Middle East have been linked to involvement with America. One of the ways that countries can be involved in any situation is being in direct conflict with a certain country. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious examples of an American Involvement theme among the Middle Eastern crises.
However, he then clearly tells the nation that “if the dictators are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part.” Sensing the seemingly inevitable involvement in the war, he tells Americans that “we must all prepare to make the sacrifices that the emergency demands”, meaning that we must be militarily prepared for anything, and that the nation must be mentally prepared to make significant sacrifices. Democracy, Roosevelt explains, must be defended at any cost. He reminds the world that the pillars of democracy are worth fighting
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.
Although however, this strained their relationship between the USSR from having conflicting national interests, this economic concept could be said to have been a huge tension between the USSR and America, as it excluded Russia, alienating them by spreading their capitalist ideologies and all the while ignoring their need for help in rebuilding themselves. Truman based his entire strategy of containment on George Kennan’s analysis of communism. Kennan implied the entire problem is the ideology, and the leaders who believe in it. The American hostility to communism therefore played a huge role in the shaping of the Cold War and showing the divide between the superpowers and highlighting the personalities and conflicting interests between
America has been hijacked and the people manipulated and controlled with fear. Political dissent is tantamount to treason and free speech is relegated to 'free speech zones' far away from political candidates. Whilst all of this is happening around us, the people are stuck on the impression that threats to security are merely military threats from outside sources and fail to comprehend the danger of these terrorizations brought on by our own government within our own borders. More specifically, the Patriot Act blatantly tramples on the Bill of Rights yet is tolerated and even supported by the majority of Americans as a necessary evil against terrorism. In this sense Ullman’s notion of the transaction between liberty and security is very tangible today (Ullman,
Some would argue that by killing our enemies without due process, that we are no worse than our enemies in our barbarism. While such a statement is targeted at an audience's pathos, and is devoid of substance, it nevertheless points to the slippery sloped involved in targeted extra-judicial killing. Once powers contravening the Constitution have been put into the hands of government, this power is not easily removed. With this, in dealing with the dangers of terrorism, at home and abroad, America's policies do threaten its democracy. With this, it is of the utmost imperative that independent reviews of governmental policy, regardless of secrecy and classification, take place so as to ensure that extra-judicial governmental actions fall within the national interest, rather the whims of a given