James Monroe beleived that the United States should not become involved in European affairs because of the weakness of the US. They didn’t want to get involved in foreign affairs because they did not have the resources to deal with war if war should come. They decided that it was better to not get involved than to get involved and not be able to deal with the situation. This belief resulted in the Monroe Doctrine. In my opinion, the Monroe Doctrine is not still used in the United States.
To start off with, there are two main fundamental problems which faced the PG. These were the fact that it had neither authority nor power. To begin with, the PG lacked authority. Its members were not elected even though the PG promised to hold elections to a constituent assemble at the first opportunity – but with a war raging, this was an impossible task. How is this responsible?
As there are two sides to a coin, there are two groups of believers- one that supports pacifism, and the other that does not. The basic principle of Pacifism is mainly to oppose the idea and act of war and violence completely. The ideology stems from the severity and moral derogation of war, where violence is used to take away or injure innocent lives, deeming it to be morally incorrect. With this thread of thought comes the inevitable conclusion that violence is never justified. Truthfully, violence has never been a concept that could be morally justified.
Walzer distinguishes between guerilla warfare and terrorism, arguing that the latter’s conduct is not justified according to the established rules of war. While guerilla warfare and terrorism share similarities with respect to the foreseeable killing of noncombatants, terrorism is never justified firstly because of the random nature of its targets. Second, the fact that terrorism is a useful tactic for avoiding engagement with an enemy’s military makes it far more dangerous for civilians than guerilla warfare. Finally, terrorism’s lack of moral limitations and restrictions on killing make it rather difficult for any compromise or reconciliation to be possible. While the element of surprise is one of the key tactics employed in both guerilla warfare and terrorism, it is the latter’s employment of this tactic that Walzer takes issue with.
* * 2. What are at least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue? * * Cotton and Devilly stress that Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) is not explained properly and research has proven that CISD does not give patients the results needed. * Devilly and Cotton also stated that Critical incident stress management (CISM) is also not properly explained in the treatment of traumatized individuals, which makes the process ineffective (Halgin, 2007). * Mitchell’s opinion is that Devilly and Cotton display a lack of knowledge within the text of CISM because no reference to this literature is stated by the authors.
The clashes of Lovett and O’Connor meant there was a lack of effective leadership at crucial times in the movement. This lack of leadership was the single most damaging factor to the Chartists. The constant leadership battles meant that the movement was too busy attacking itself and did not focus on achieving their set goals. The leadership and
Firstly, that the waging of war is off the back of every possible alternate method of peaceful resolution being exhausted. If mediation or negotiation are ignored and battle is the chief intention from the outset a war is not considered just and should not be engaged in. Secondly, a ‘just’ war must have the backing of an authority that is able and permitted to sanction the call of warfare. A private person or a group with no legal entitlement would not be able to wage a just war as they do not have the right or the capacity to do so. Thirdly, a just war is one that is waged because the party waging it have suffered a wrong and are seeking to rectify the situation.
This was the factor which doomed the Directory to failure, no matter when it happened. This was aggravated by the circumstance absolutely no real, political efforts being made to make it work. Neither extreme knew what it wanted. The right wing did support monarchy, but not an absolute one. On the other hand, the left might have wanted more control at the centre and more equality throughout France, but not the rural based leveling of Babeuf.
He would have had no interest in it if the Indian National Congress had adopted Satyagraha and subscribed to nonviolence. He objected to violence not only because an unarmed people had little chance of success in an armed rebellion, but because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved, and left a trail of hatred and bitterness in which genuine reconciliation was almost impossible. This emphasis on nonviolence jarred alike on Gandhi’s British and Indian critics, though for different reasons. To the former, nonviolence was a camouflage; to the latter, it was sheer sentimentalism. To the British who tended to see the Indian struggle through the prism of European history, the professions of nonviolence rather than on the remarkably peaceful nature of Gandhi’s campaigns.
The absurd is not in man alone nor in the world alone, but in the juxtaposition of the two: “The world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose calls echoes in the human heart.” (The myth of Sisyphus) III. Suicide. Suicide is not a logical consequence of the absurd. It attempts to escape the absurd by removing one of its elements: the human longing for order (philosophical) of the unbearable, unintelligible world (physical).