He, McCarthy was never able to produce actual evidence of actual communism. Joseph McCarthy intimidated many people. This is not the sign of a true patriot. Had he been a patriot he would have led people with proven truths not misconstrued lies. The followers he had were impressed with his fearless assaults on government establishments.
The arguments that come out of this book as delievered by Jon Krakauer center around Pat’s death while serving in the Army. Arguments arose about the way the government portrayed Pat Tillman’s death to his family and to the rest of the world. Pat Tillman’s death originally wasn’t accurately disclosed as being caused by friendly fire, in which it was, but rather it was told to have been caused by the natural evils of combat and of our countries enemies. President Bush used Pat’s story as a way to promote his administration’s foreign policy. Thus leaving American’s to become conspirious about the truths of war and ethics in the Federal Government.
However, he doesn’t say he has no respect or admiration for Churchill, writing “never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent. This suggests that he believes Churchill does play a crucial role during the war; it’s only his military influence which caused a problem. This source was produced by Sir Alan Brooke as a diary entry in September 1944. As the source was produced during the time, and was a diary entry, he would have had little time for any hindsight or reflection on the situation being discussed. This could affect the reliability of the source, with it possible that his true views have been influenced by the events of the day, making it possible he has been overly critical of Churchill due to the fact it is a diary entry.
Specifically, the actions of North on the National Security Council staff were very questionable. Secondly, Presidential findings were postdated and signed ex post facto. This meant that the sale of missiles to Iran was not legitimate at the time of sale. Thirdly, disparate operations were merged when the funds generated through the arms deal was used to support the contras. Lastly, the executive branch failed to keep Congress informed.
The authors comments stress how important it is for the military forces to remain in Afghanistan according to military officials but fails to expand on why the President of Karzai refuse to sign an agreement that would benefit them from their presence, a President that was placed in power for over a decade because of the United States, and he know he don’t have the extra military equipment the United States possess that he benefitted from, nor do he have the financial means to sustain the military forces he needs. For a man that could only benefit, from the information presented implies the security agreement contain information the President don’t feel is beneficial for his country. The basic understanding that can be deduced from the article is the Afghan soldiers learned a lot from the military presence of the United States and they are equipped with the military prowess to combat the Taliban and they no longer want the United States involved or present in their country; even though, the Afghans can benefit from the United Military aid and financial
The United States was able to fight communism without having to put U.S forces in action, with support to anti-soviet rebels. In the short term, this proved successful of removing communistic powers and formation of U.S-friendly governments. However, the long term goals of were hampered, as governments that formed usually involved a militaristic regime or total anarchy. It also left many people to resent the United States and later opposed to U.S policies. Especially in Afghanistan, where the U.S cut and ran after the Soviet defeat, not willing to establish some sort of democracy in the country.
A person’s official position in an organization does not alone indicate his or her actual influence. Robert Kennedy in his brother’s administration is a prime example. Davidson and Lytle lead the reader through an examination of events using the bureaucratic politics model to explain why alternatives to dropping the bomb were never seriously considered. While certain scientists favored a demonstration, their suggestion was vetoed by Truman’s gatekeeper and Secretary of State, James Byrnes, who refused to even forward the suggestion to
“I think that’s really ironic that nobody said maybe the president had any influence on this violent behavior.”- Interview How this alters my perspective: thinking that the government always tries to help, this makes it very contradicting, the govt. is part of the cause of gun violence.
In America the role of the government is to protect its people and be a big brother. In this case the government did the exact opposite and betrayed its people to the point of killing people. Back in the early 50’s and late 50’s the government was very arrogant and thought they could do what they wanted when in reality that is not true. The people of the 50’s also had little to no advocacy (people that watch out for people) and there were no Watch Dog groups or groups of people that did not allow the government to harm its citizens. The only reason the government would do something of his nature was for the effects, for example when the government would test their nuclear weapons in the desert they would send soldiers into the desert
Powerful figures in the government didn’t see it that way; they saw it as an opportunity for the United States to get a foot hole in Southeast Asia, and also an opportunity to revenue money, like mention earlier, the United States of America at that time was searching for ways to draw closer to the Soviet Union, so by getting into Vietnam, that definitely would have gotten the United States