Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary directed by Michael Moore in a bid to create awareness concerning the events leading to the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath. It is specifically intended for the American public especially when one considers that it was released during an election year. The audience of this documentary is treated to massive revelations concerning the manner through which the Bush administration has been compromised through the President’s looking after his personal interests instead of those of the American people. This documentary was intended to steer public anger against president Bush to such an extent that he was not reelected but this turned out not to be the case since he won the elections.

This documentary was developed for the purpose of ensuring that the American public as well as the rest of the world was made aware of events leading to the 9/11 attacks as well as its having occurred because of the connections between the Bush, Saud and Bin Laden families. This can be considered to be a political documentary whose main reason was to ensure the President Bush was not reelected for another term as president of the United States. The main message that this film attempts to get to its audience is that the Bush administration had lost all credibility to lead the nation and had to be voted out of office. Furthermore, the documentary attempts to show that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy developed to ensure that an environment of fear was developed in the country to such an extent that the Bush administration was able to pursue its political agenda in the global arena. The war on terror is presented as a cover for a sinister plot between the Bush family and its allies to ensure that they have control over resources in the Middle East at the cost of the lives of numerous American servicemen and women.

I knew nothing concerning the subject of the documentary prior to viewing it and what I found out was quite interesting. The issue of the 9/11 attacks having been a conspiracy was the farthest thing from my mind because of my constant belief that they were merely terrorist attacks perpetrated by the al Qaeda network. When I first went to see the documentary, I expected it to elaborate on the events leading to the 9/11 attacks as well as a background of the perpetrators. Furthermore, I expected it to document the progress made by the government in the war on terror and how it was gathering information concerning the eventual capture of Osama bin Laden. However, once I saw the documentary, I was surprised at the different subject matter that it covered and it brought to the fore many questions among which was whether the people of the United States are as free as they believe they are. Furthermore, my curiosity concerning the controversies surrounding the 9/11 attacks was aroused because I came to view them from a very different perspective from what I had gotten used to.

The main subject of Fahrenheit 9/11 are the 9/11 attacks and the events which took place prior, during, and after they happened. This documentary show that the Bush, Bin Laden, and Saud families had a long business relationship spanning decades and because of this, they had developed fast friendships. There is an implication that these three families were responsible for staging the 9/11 attacks to create an excuse for the American military machine to be used in attaining their political and economic interests in the Middle East. The documentary makes a display of the realities of the war on terror and how recruiters are used by military to bring in individuals from poor backgrounds to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moore shows that despite its being widely touted as a war on terror, the main intention of this war is to ensure that there are further limitations to the freedoms of American people while at the same time working for the economic interests of a limited number of people. The documentary is filmed in the United States while there is footage from other parts of the world in an attempt to put flesh on its subject matter.

Moore makes constructive uses of sound effects in order to make the audience feel the sinister nature of the documentary’s subject. When he describes the manner through which a conspiracy is hatched to deprive Americans of their freedoms, the sound effects in the background enhance this and make the audience fear for their freedoms. In cases where interviews are being conducted, the lighting is quite sharp and this is used as a means of showing the audience the seriousness of what the interviewees are saying. However, when sinister connections between individuals are displayed, the images are darkened and this evokes an eerie feeling within the person watching the documentary. Important images throughout the documentary are brought into sharp focus especially where Moore is attempting to display such instances as where he is denied access to certain places. The interviews are quite interesting because Moore deals with individuals in a more or less informal manner, making them more comfortable and resulting in their saying more than they normally would have.

The part which I liked the most was that which showed President Bush at a classroom in an elementary school after being told that the World Trade Center had been hit by a plane. The moments that he sat still without taking any action seem to suggest that he may have been party to the attacks taking place. In addition, the documentary provides very important lessons one of which is that there is no need for certain legislation, such as the Patriot Act to be passed out of fear rather than being though through carefully. One of the issues which surprised me in the documentary was the association between the Bush and Bin Laden families which had spanned decades; a fact which I did not know before watching Fahrenheit 9/11. However, a drawback occurs where individuals such as President Bush, who are its subjects, are not interviewed in order to give their side of the story and this creates a situation where the documentary can be considered to be one-sided. Despite this, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary which I would be glad to recommend from my friends because it is one which will open their eyes to the workings of the world and show them that not everything is what it seems.

The U.S. Military should shift its focus from Terrorism

There has recently developed the argument that the time has come for military of the United States to shift its focus from terrorism to other matters which are designed to promote international peace. It is for this reason that many policy makers have increasingly started shifting their attention from the war on terror to other initiatives that involve less military involvement in combat and more on peacekeeping and diplomatic initiatives. According to McAllister (2007), the United States in recent years has come to develop some very close relationships with its former adversaries such as Russia, with which it has developed increasing cooperation in matters concerning nonproliferation and counterterrorism. The main reason for the increased cooperation between these countries, according to McAllister is mainly because of the increasing threats to international security through the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states as well as the development of religious radicalism which further increases international insecurity. As world leaders, both the United States and Russia have come to realize that they have a common interest in the containment of security threats and these have been exemplified through the increasing risk of terrorist attacks against the United States as well as the radicalization that is taking place in the Caucasus region of Russia. It is mainly through military cooperation between these states, as seen through bilateral, unilateral, and multilateral initiatives, which have ensured that there is proper distribution of international power in ensuring security. McAllister concludes that while the American and Russian militaries have in recent years seen some level of cooperation, the fact remains that these two countries still have a long way to go before they can be able to fully cooperate in all matters concerning international security. It is for this reason that cases that deal directly with national security are dealt with informally, on a case-by-case starting point.

The military-led war on terror has led to a situation where a large number of suspected terrorists have been detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and it is for this reason that there has been plenty of agitation for the release of some of them, because they are deemed to be innocent. Foley (2007) states that the supporters of the policy of detaining individuals for long periods of time without trial justify their support by declaring that it provides the president with the capacity to contain terrorists and through vigorous interrogation are able to provide details of planned attacks. According to Foley, this plan has been widely criticized from its beginnings because it is a direct violation of human rights and lacks in any moral grounds making in illegal. This use of the military in the interrogation and detention of suspected terrorists, Foley states, has been a complete failure because it has led to the imprisonment of some innocent people who have only confessed to crimes they did not commit because of the fear of torture. The fact that the military is used in the development of indiscriminate dragnets, incarceration as well as the use of coercive interrogations who have not been proven to be terrorists has led to the discrediting of the American military, which many believed is a tool of American injustice. There has developed the risk of intelligence agencies being provided with false information through the false confessions of individuals who do not know anything about what they are talking about and this has led to the increasing misinformation that has hampered the progress of the war on terror. Because of the abject failure of coercive interrogations, the United States government has come to fail to comprehend the connection between detention, interrogation, and detentions and this has led to the failure to sort those individuals who are terrorists from non-terrorists through the judicial process.

It is a fact that many of the individuals who, through military action, have been detained are not accorded any of the constitutional rights that are commonplace among most Americans. This has led to the increasing disillusionment of the families of the individuals that have been detained that they will receive justice by proving their innocence. According to Jenkins (2006), in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that the individuals who had been detained by the government on suspicion of being terrorists only had limited rights and that because of this; they had no ability to challenge their status as enemy combatants. Jenkins further states that it was in response to this case that the Bush government formed the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), although this tribunal proved not to be effective because it functioned as the propagator of the government’s case against the detainees. This tribunal has proven to apply a broad definition to all of those individuals who have been categorized as enemy combatants and because the detainees are prohibited from having lawyers, they are not able to argue against the tribunal’s decision to detain them indefinitely. The military commissions which were developed by the Bush government to try detainees on charges of terrorism and war crimes have, according to Jenkins, been rigged against the accused. This is mainly because of the fact that these commissions rely completely on the confessions coerced from the detainees through torture, the use of hearsay, as well as the use of soldiers as jurors. Because military commissions have the power of passing the death sentence to those who are brought before them has created a situation where it is extremely difficult for the individuals who have been falsely accused to get out of the situation alive. This is the reason why some innocent detainees, in their attempt to stay alive end up falsely accusing others and confessing to crimes they did not commit as a way of avoiding the death sentence. In addition, Jenkins states that because of the rigged rules that have been put in place in the trials of detainees, it has become the norm for investigators to remain confident that they will win all the cases that are brought before them. This is mainly because investigators have come to see little need to infiltrate terrorist organizations to gain tangible or credible details for their cases, relying on the mostly false confessions of their detainees. Kim and Allard (2008) state that since its development, there have been many challenges faced by the Department of Homeland Security in its attempt to create a common culture within the intelligence agencies under its jurisdiction. It is the development of a common culture between these disparate agencies that, in addition to the military, is essential for the development of a comprehensive antiterrorism strategy. This has not been the case and has led to the failure of intelligence agencies to develop accurate databases, and this has resulted in the failure of some military operations meant to deal with terrorist threats.

The 9/11 attacks on the United States has led to the development of a new American approach to foreign policy which is intimately tied to the security of the nation. According to Miles (2012), the American foreign policy towards Africa has been based on ensuring its security and this has come to rival development as the main reason behind American involvement in this continent. All development programs and projects that are of American origin have attached to them a security dimension, developed by the department of defense, which works hand in hand with such institutions as USAID. Miles argues that the high potential for acts of terrorism to be committed in the United States has led it to adopt policies towards Africa which serve to undermine its development. This is the reason, he states, why it is important for the United States to adopt counterterrorism measures towards Africa which are fairly mild to ensure that it becomes a strategic as well as developmental defense activity. Miles, in the writing of his article uses records as well as a study of the American policies towards the Maghreb region from the Bush through to the Obama administrations. The result of this study is that since the 9/11 attacks, the American policy towards this region has seriously shifted, ensuring that the previously diverse developmental and security initiatives in the region have become converged into one initiative. The result of this has been that there has developed a wide range of sympathetic public opinion throughout Africa towards the American military involvement in their countries, with many believing that they are the best option for deterring terrorism. This, however, has not been the case in American public, where there is a large number of people who question the validity of the military being actively involved in the developmental and security programs of African nations when they can do more in fighting terrorism.

The American military involvement in the war on terror has had an adverse effect on the internal stability of some countries such as Pakistan, which has since the beginning of this initiative, been a staunch American ally. According to Khan (2010), Pakistan’s military alliance with the United States has led to a situation where it is currently facing an internal crisis. This crisis stems from the fact that the government which recently came to power has had to contend with the commitments made by the previous government to the American cause as well as maintaining a stable relationship with its neighbors that has been soured by the war on terror. Khan further states that it is because of Pakistan’s involvement in the war on terror that its security has come under threat not only from India, its longtime rival, but also Afghanistan. Khan therefore offers the opinion that the only solution for this situation is for the United States to restrain the activities of India along the border close to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Moreover, according to Mohamadian (2012), there has been numerous debates among scholars concerning the unilateral military actions that the United States has taken in the Middle East which have come to affect diplomacy and international relations. While the intentions of some of these interventions might have been sound, the result has been arise in sectarian violence, especially in Iraq, as well as the prevalence of terrorist attacks, and these have come to threaten the American-led initiative to rebuild the Iraqi state. Furthermore, Ahmad (2010) states that there has developed some friction between the United States’ counterterrorism initiative and the one of Pakistan and this have created a situation where there is conflict between their national interests. Pakistan’s reliance on irregular warfare in its region is one of its instruments of national security and this has come to be challenged by the United States government which seeks to bring these activities to an end, therefore not serving Pakistan’s national interests.

African Americans and Japanese Americans During WWII and its Aftermath

African Americans and Japanese Americans had a long history of discrimination in the country and this became worse during and after the Second World War when many of them came to be segregated along racial lines. The history of discrimination against these two communities tended to be extreme because they were treated as lesser human beings who had no rights. Therefore, despite having been in America for several generations already, these groups came to face many challenges especially during the war and post-war period.

When the African Americans who had been to the war returned home, they came with new ideas acquired from their experiences in the warzone in Europe. While they were in Europe, they had been treated on an equal basis by the white people of that continent and this made them realise their rights as human beings. Those from the south had a new mindset which would eventually lead them to ensuring that their rights as human beings were respected and that the Jim Crow South did not remain as it had been previously.

The fact that African Americans came to realise their rights and demanded them did not go down well within the white dominated society. This period came to see heavy attacks on the African Americans by the white establishment, especially in the south where many were attacked in broad daylight in full view of the police who did nothing to protect these people (Hobson, 356). It was the escalation of these attacks as well as the discrimination in other sectors of the social and economic life of the United States that there developed the Civil Rights Movement whose main purpose was to fight for the rights of the African Americans.

After the Pearl Harbour attacks in the United States, where the Imperial Japanese navy attacked the United States on its own soil, it was the Japanese Americans who came to face the brunt of the public anger that developed. The Japanese Americans were innocent of any involvement in these attacks yet they were increasingly viewed with suspicion by the mainstream American society. This situation became worse once the United States entered the war on the side of the Allies, since the Japanese Americans were made to leave their homes and moved into detention camps because of the suspicion that there were Japanese spies among them (Staub 1238).

The fact that they were detained by their own government despite having lived in the United States for generations and having broken all ties with Japan was a sign that they had not been fully accepted into American society. Those who were detained in these camps, when eventually set free, were much traumatised because they failed to see the reason why they had been detained in the first place. Just because they looked different form the rest of the American people and that their ancestors originally came from a country which had attacked the United States was not a valid reason for their discrimination and this they came to realise as a violation of their fundamental rights as Americans.

Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the people who I admire the most in the world, not only as a leader of men, but also as a man devoted to his family. This admiration does not just stem from the fact that he is one of the greatest men to have ever lived in the Western world, but it also comes from the way he conducted himself throughout his life. Napoleon was indeed a unique man, who rose from extremely humble origins and became the emperor of the most powerful nation in Europe at the time. His life has been the subject of numerous literatures, with some writers supporting his deeds while others have condemned them. Despite these disagreements about Napoleon, one thing, which all writers agree upon, is that he was indeed an extraordinary man. Most historians consider Napoleon to have been one of, if not the foremost, military general in world history. Within a few years after becoming the French emperor, he had brought most of continental Europe under his rule. Furthermore, he had created a unique system of government, the like of which had never been seen in Europe. For the first time in the years after the French Revolution, the Catholic Church returned to France under his guidance. In addition, Napoleon was a man unique in his time because of the immense love he had for his family. He was also a man who was not afraid to take any path to satisfy his ambitions. It is because of all these distinctiveness and a lot more, which make him the person I have a high regard for.

Napoleon was born in the town of Ajaccio in Corsica, in 1769, to a local Corsican minor nobleman, and his birth coincided with the time when the French were trying to enforce their rule on Corsica, an island which had recently been ceded to them by an Italian ruler. Napoleon was born just a year after the French had acquired Corsica, and this occurrence ensured that he was born a French national. This ensured that while he was growing up, he did not share the same resentment as older Corsicans did towards what was locally termed as a French occupation. Instead, napoleon grew up with a great admiration for the French, something which would eventually guide him towards the path of becoming their ruler. Because his father had collaborated with the French from the early days of the occupation, he was given a particularly powerful position in the government of Ajaccio. This ensured that his family remained well off, and because of the influence his office carried, two of his sons, Joseph and Napoleon, were sent to the prestigious College d’Autun in France, where they were to be educated. It is thus that Napoleon came to France for the first time; little knowing that he would one day come to rule this country. His father passed away while he was still at a military college, and he was forced to act as the head of his family, despite his being a younger son. This was because his older brother, Joseph, was exceedingly incompetent and tended not to take his responsibilities seriously. This is one of the characteristics displayed by Napoleon that are most admirable. He was not afraid to take up responsibility, no matter how hard they seemed to be at first.

It was soon after he left the military college that he and his family permanently relocated to France, where Napoleon’s career would begin in earnest. For a person so young, he showed his ambitions early by joining a political group soon after relocating to France. Furthermore, he took up military service in the French army which was based in Nice. The tumultuous events, which were taking place in France during this time, gave Napoleon the opportunity to satisfy his ambitions. He got his first successful break when he saved the government of the time from a coup attempt by a rival group. This act ensured that he got the attention of the committee which ruled France at the time, who promoted him to the position of commander in the army. His new found influence earned him the command of the French army in Italy; a position, which he had coveted. This is where his martial ability came to be exhibited for the first time. When he was given command, he found the men to be disgruntled and underfed. His charismatic nature and organizational and military brilliance soon changed that as this became the best wing of the French military. Not only was there a complete turnaround in the men’s morale, Napoleon managed to gain victories over the Austrians which were crucial to the French cause. These actions vastly enhanced his image in France, and when he returned, he was a national hero. With his return to France, Napoleon truly started his political career.

This man’s political genius can be seen through his actions after his return to France from the war in Italy. He made what one could term a political marriage to one of the most famous women in France at the time, Josephine de Beauharnais. This turned out to be a tremendously popular marriage in the country, and it further enhanced Napoleon’s image as the national hero. Within a few years, Napoleon came to gain power in France, as one of the three men who ruled the country. His political genius then came into play as he had the constitution revised, making him the most powerful man in the country. This new power enabled him to have the authority to appoint all the people who were to occupy strategic positions. With Napoleon’s rise to power, it can be said that the French Revolution officially came to an end. His actions show that he was indeed a child of the revolution, as he used to say. He swiftly reformed all the crucial sectors in the government, making them more efficient than they had ever been before. Reforms were carried out in such sectors as the economy, the judicial system, as well as the education system. Napoleon’s greatness can further be seen when he restored those basic freedoms which the French people had been denied. One of these freedoms was the freedom of religion, which Napoleon reinstated by inviting the Catholic Church back to France. However, he did not give the Church the absolute authority it once had, and instead, its activities were placed under the supervision of the state. This ensured that the Church did not abuse its powers as it had done previously.

One of the most admirable things about Napoleon is his dedication to his family. When he rose to greatness, he made sure that members of his family also shared in it. He was exceedingly generous to them, often giving his siblings powerful positions in his empire. In fact, all of his siblings, except one, became monarchs of various parts of the continent during his rule. Even Joseph, the brother who had abandoned his responsibility as the oldest son, was made a king of Spain. This just shows the true nature of Napoleon; he was a loving man who did not hold grudges. Napoleon had one known illegitimate son, Alexandre Walewski, whose mother was a Polish noblewoman. While many men in that period tended to ignore their illegitimate children, Napoleon recognized his son and took responsibility for him. This can be said to be an example of his loving and caring nature. Despite the many wars which took place under his rule, the French people did surprisingly well. Their government was for the first time highly efficient, and the bureaucracy whom Napoleon had put in place worked far better than previous governments. It is because of all these achievements, made by a man from such humble origins, that I consider Napoleon to be one of the greatest and most admirable, men in history.

Were Atrocities Committed in Vietnam?

The United States throughout its history has gone to war starting with its war of independence until most recently, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In most of the wars that it has been involved in, there have been claims that the United States military has committed atrocities against the civilian populations of the countries it has invaded. The reports of such atrocities have been reported during the following instances: the Philippine-American war; the Second World War; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; in Yugoslavia in 1999; and finally, during the War on Terror. In this paper, we shall discuss some American atrocities committed during the Vietnam War with specific emphasis on the crimes committed against the noncombat civilian population within Vietnam.

Atrocities such as the killing of noncombat civilians or the torture of prisoners occur in all wars but that it became a particular issue in the Vietnam War. Violence against the civilians of Vietnam by the American military was an intentional act of war and they acted with indifference to the destruction of noncombatants and to that of their property. Most of the military commanders of the United States were aware of the laws governing ground warfare that had been established by various international agreements but atrocities were still committed by some American soldiers and officers. Throughout the entire war, only two hundred and seventy eight soldiers and marines were convicted of murder, rape, and other violent crimes by the military justice system but many more incidents went unpunished or were not even reported. The policy of heavy bombing by in South Vietnam with high explosives and napalm by American forces to support ground operations in and around villages and the widespread use of artillery for the same purpose generated many accidental civilian casualties.

The United States military used herbicides and defoliants as part of its herbicidal warfare in Vietnam, and one of these, known as Agent Orange, was used extensively from 1961 to 1971 in South Vietnam and in portions of North Vietnam. At the time the herbicides were being used, there was little consideration within the American military about the potential long term effects of the widespread use of Agent Orange towards the Vietnamese population. It is further unclear exactly where in Vietnam the Agent Orange herbicides were sprayed and the amount sprayed at each location and this has ensured that virtually every aspect of the effects of this herbicide in Vietnam is infused with uncertainty. These herbicides were used on the crops of the Vietnamese civilians so that the crops could die causing mass starvation. The American army commanders mistakenly believed that starvation would force the Vietnamese population to support the American backed South Vietnamese regime but this turned out to be counterproductive because instead the people lost all confidence in the southern government and secretly supported the North. Another major result of the use of these herbicides was the mass starvation that occurred after their use and a lot of the civilian population, which had nothing to do with the war, died in the resulting famine.

It was the fear, anger, and incentive for promotion or commendation for a high body count (which was a requirement by the military at the time) that led the American soldiers to an over application of their weaponry which constituted atrocities against the civilian population. Individual Vietnamese and sometimes even entire villages could be killed because they were suspected of being the enemy or in certain incidents; they were simply killed just because they got in the way. The Vietnam war, with its tactical use of high altitude bombing and artillery fire, and the search and destroy missions resulted in mass killings. These weapons were used indiscriminately by the American military and in the process many civilians were killed accidentally. The number of these accidental killings may border in the tens of thousands because there were no statistics, whether private or official, at the time to show their extent. Furthermore, while platoons were on missions, their leaders rarely restrained them from committing such acts as would be deemed atrocities in normal human societies. One of the major and most notable of these incidents, due to the high media attention it gained, was the My Lai massacre of 1968.

The My Lai massacre in Vietnam was the mass murder of between three hundred and five hundred Vietnamese civilians in the village of Son My by American soldiers during the Vietnam War. Most of the victims of this massacre were women, children and the elderly and when investigations were carried out, some of the bodies were found to have been mutilated and many of the women had been raped preceding the killings. When news of this massacre first came to light, the army tried to deflect any concern about it by blaming it on the South Vietnamese military. This incident prompted global outrage when it became public and it increase the domestic opposition for the United State’s involvement in Vietnam. The My Lai massacre had numerous complex causes which included psychological stress on the soldiers, poor unit leadership, bad intelligence, and an overall American strategy that put more emphasis on killing than on protecting the people. The American strategy of having body counts to show their progress in their progress in the war was very detrimental to the lives of the Vietnamese civilians because they could not be differentiated from the North Vietnamese soldiers who also wore peasant clothing. This led to the American soldiers’ killing of random Vietnamese civilians on suspicion that they were enemy forces. Some soldiers, bent on having a higher body count in order to establish their reputations within the military ranks, wantonly killed Vietnamese civilians in order to raise their counts.

By its nature, atrocity defies rationality, marking the limits of understanding and he uses this to explain what happened in Vietnam. The order to kill anything that moves caused many American soldiers to commit vast and unthinkable atrocities in Vietnam. American platoons had a tendency of waylaying civilians, raping the women among them, and at times murdered them in cold blood. In certain instances, if the American soldiers did not find anybody to fight in the various villages across the countryside of Vietnam, they would instead indulge themselves by raping, torturing, and murdering the hundreds of civilians living within such villages. Most of these cases went unreported because the people of Vietnam at the time did not have did not have any legal authority they could turn to for justice because they were in the middle of a war and furthermore, the government which claimed to represent them (South Vietnam) had allied itself with a foreign power in order to maintain its authority. In fact, the South Vietnamese government actively supported the American involvement in Vietnam despite the fact that atrocities were being committed against its civilian population.

America committed genocide in Vietnam and admits that individual atrocities and war crimes did occur in that country. One would agree with Sevy’s opinion because of the statistics showing the American military casualties of the war. It is said that about fifty eight thousand United States soldiers died in the Vietnamese war and this was despite their having a weapons technology that was far superior to that of their opponents. Now that it has been determined that the Americans had superior weapons, we should now the casualties in the Vietnamese side. If the American lost nearly sixty thousand soldiers despite their superior weapons, it is only logical to assume that the Vietnamese lost many times more that number in armed forces and that would be without counting the civilian casualties of this war. The random killings that were committed by all the armed forces involved in this conflict may put the number of civilian casualties in the millions. It is my suggestion that if the Americans had not involved themselves in the war in the first place, then it would have come to a swift end much sooner than it did.

The American atrocities in Vietnam are real and that they happened on a much grander scale than have been reported. It is up to the United States government to recognize and acknowledge these atrocities and not only do so, but also apologize to the people of Vietnam for committing them. If the American government would do this, then there would definitely be an improvement in the relations between America and Vietnam which would bring them even closer than they are today. Furthermore, America would earn global respect for owning up to its failures and because of this new found respect; America would be able to retain its hegemony over the world with the good will of all the nations of the world. This would be to its advantage especially considering that new world powers, such as China, Russia, and Brazil, are rising to challenge America’s authority as the only world superpower.

A Geopolitical Profile of Russia

Introduction

Russia is one of the most influential geopolitical entities in the world today and this is mainly as a result of its unique position in the global arena. This country has been extremely influential in the Eurasian region for much of its history and this influence has not only been political, but cultural as well. The power of this state, from the time of the tsars to the post-communist world can be considered to have essentially remained intact within the region surrounding it. This country is normally ranked second only to the United States in its ability to project its power across the globe and it is mainly as a result of this that it has been able to retain its influence long after falling from its superpower status.

Geography

Russia is the largest country in the world with its borders stretching from northern Europe across northern Asia to the Bering Straits. As the largest country in the world, with an area of 17,075,400 square kilometres, it is one of the few countries in the world that have a diversity of natural resources, people, as well as neighbouring countries. The result is that this country has come to exert a lot of influence over a large territory as well as its neighbours for centuries. Its geographical position is unique because it allows it to wield some influence on three continents as well as being able to project itself militarily. Russia incorporates a wide range of climates and environments within its territory and these have had an effect on its historical development. Moreover, this country has borders with a diverse number of countries including China, Norway, Lithuania, Finland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the United States across the Bering Straits, among many others.  The geographical position of this country has also placed it on top of the largest oil and gas reserves on the planet and this country has been able to ensure that this resource is used to further its geopolitical power over the Eurasian region. In addition to oil and natural gas, Russia has other significant resources which include deposits of timber, coal, and as well as mineral resources that have given it an advantage over other countries in the region. As the largest producer of natural gas in the world, Russia is in a unique position to determine the futures of some of its neighbouring countries, most of which were former member states of the Soviet Union. It is through its unique position as being the number one producer of natural gas, in addition to oil, that it has been able to ensure that it maintains its influence over the region because it has the funding necessary to make its influence felt. The large forests that are found in the region of Siberia are second only to the Amazon jungle in Brazil and they are believed to absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide which helps to ensure that the air in the region is kept clean. The eastern parts of Russia are relatively sparsely populated when compared to the European side which carries the bulk of the population. While this may be the case, there are a significant number of people in all its administrative regions, these being individuals who have for the most part acclimatised to the harsh climate that occurs especially in the northernmost parts of the country. While Russia has come to occupy such a large area, this was not the case in its early centuries where it was essentially divided into diverse city-states and duchies controlled by members of the Rurik dynasty. However, all this changed when these disparate city states were unified and the Russian state began its expansion in earnest during the 16th century. The result was that it ended up conquering much of the land that had once been occupied by the Mongol Golden Horde. Its occupation of new lands sealed its fate in world history because it is through its size as well as its multiethnic make up that this state has come to be recognised into the modern world. Through its new found geographical acquisitions, Russia was able to make sure that it was no longer a victim of the aggression of other European powers. Instead, its geographical position became the basis upon which its status as a great European power was established and this would continue until the fall of Communism in 1991.

History

The Russian state was established in the tenth century by a legendary group of Vikings based in Kiev and this would later expand into what came to be known as Russia. The founders of this state, according to legend, were Rurik and his brothers who would eventually end up forming the Rurik dynasty that would rule Russia until the death of Ivan the Terrible. The early Russian state was essentially a pagan one with little interaction with the outside world until Prince Vladimir of Kiev converted to Orthodox Christianity, thus establishing ties with the Byzantine Empire. The growth of the Russian state was brought to a sudden halt in the thirteenth century during the Mongol conquest which resulted in the sacking of Kiev. The destruction of the first Russian state led to a shift of power to Moscow, which was ruled by another Rurik prince and was a vassal of the Mongols. The vassalage to the Mongols of the Golden Horde ensured the survival of the Russian state in Moscow in the form of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy. This would eventually rise to such great prominence that it would not only overthrow Mongol rule, but would eventually evolve into the Russian Empire, encompassing all the lands of the Golden Horde. With the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks, Russia, which had also established ties through dynastic marriage, claimed to be the heir to the power and glory of Caesars. In this way, Moscow came to be considered the third Rome and its rulers began to be called Tsars, Russian for Caesar.

Russia entered the modern age under the rule of Peter the Great whose efforts were directed at making his country a truly European state. He forced the Russians to cease some of the traditions that seemed to keep them back and were considered unEuropean. Furthermore, he established a new capital closer to Europe at St. Petersburg, essentially choosing it over Moscow as the preeminent city in the Russian Empire. In addition to these efforts, Peter the Great carried out campaigns which ensured that the empire was greatly expanded while at the same time gaining political leverage with other European states through developing modern means of shipping as well as adopting the European culture, especially that of France. However, despite these efforts, Peter was not able to end one of the institutions which held Russia back from becoming one of the most powerful states in Europe, serfdom. Serfdom had existed in Russia for centuries and this institution had developed to such an extent that individuals, particularly serfs, were essentially slaves in their own land. The serfs formed the majority of the Russian population and these were tied to the land which for the most part was held by nobles or boyars; individuals who practically owned the serfs on their land. Serfdom remained a stain in Peter’s legacy and it would eventually be the motivation behind the Russian Revolution centuries later in the early twentieth century.

The Russian Revolution and the resulting civil war is one of the most significant events to have taken place in the twentieth century because it ensured the rise of communism in the former Russian Empire, which became the Soviet Union, and later across the globe. The Russian royal family was put to death and the monarchy abolished to be replaced by a communist state under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin. Lenin was a charismatic leader who was a staunch believer in Marxist philosophy and sought to ensure that communism spread all over the world. His death and succession by Josef Stalin led to a new phase in the development of communism in Russia with Stalin choosing a more aggressive approach to that taken by his predecessor. He made a deal with the Nazi government in Germany for the partition of Poland and after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, he changed sides and joined the allies in the Second World War. The fall of Britain, Germany, and France as great powers after the Second World War paved the way for the Soviet Union to become a global superpower alongside the United States and this ushered in considerable rivalry between these states that became known as the Cold War. The power of these countries was based on their having considerable nuclear arsenals; the latter ensuring that there was no direct confrontation between these superpowers. The fall of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was one of the most significant events in the later twentieth century because it ensured American pre-eminence in a unipolar world.

Power

Despite its loss of power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has remained an important player in regional and global politics. One of its greatest strengths is that it has been able to maintain a level of influence over a majority of former soviet republics especially through the significant number of Russians living in these countries. Furthermore, as a result of its size as well as abundant natural resources, especially natural gas and oil, this country has been able to ensure that it exerts a level of influence over its neighbours. This is especially the case with the European Union which for years developed deals of cooperation with Russia while the latter supplied it with one third of its natural gas supplies. Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, Russia has seen its influence rise on the global stage, with its becoming more assertive about its interests. Through its permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council, Russia has been able to ensure that it not only protects its legitimate interests, but also those of its allies. The result has been that it has increasingly cooperated with China to break the dominance of the United States and its allies over global affairs. Russia is also a nuclear state with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and this has helped in securing its position in the globe as well as acting as a deterrent to powers that would otherwise led to its demise.

However, despite its strengths, Russia also has several weaknesses which might create a situation where it loses its geopolitical position. Among these is its overreliance on its oil and natural gas production to cater for some 50% of its budget. This overreliance on its natural resources has created a situation where Russia has essentially failed to diversify its economy and this poses a potential threat from a geopolitical perspective. Furthermore, its aggressive stance to protect its natural interests has made it a target for American and European Union sanctions with the latter seeing Russian re-emergence as a threat to their global dominance. These sanctions, imposed in 2014 at the height of the Ukraine crisis and Russian annexation of Crimea, have been harmful to the Russian economy and have led to its shrinking. The fall of global oil prices has also diminished Russia’s budgetary capabilities; hampering its continued rise as a dominant geopolitical power in the Eurasian continent.

Russia has attempted to ensure that it no longer loses its influence over former soviet republics after Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania not only joined NATO but also the European Union. This is the reason why Russia has chosen to take on a more aggressive stance because it considers NATO encroachment on its borders as a threat. The wars first in Georgia in 2008 and the ongoing Ukraine civil war are actions which have been taken by Russia to prevent former soviet republics from joining NATO. Since the return of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency in 2012, the relationship between Russia and the United States has soured as each has come to view each other with increasing suspicion. The mutual suspicion between these two nuclear armed states has increased tensions to almost Cold War proportions and it has led to a situation where despite not confronting each other directly, they have become involved in a proxy war in the Ukraine as well as in Syria where Russian support has ensured that Bashar Al Assad has remained in power.

Conclusion

Russia has remained a powerful actor in the Eurasian region; a factor which can be attributed to its nuclear capabilities as well as the abundance of natural resources within its borders. The size of this country has also ensured that it pursues a complex foreign policy designed to address its interests with its numerous neighbours. Russia has increasingly aligned itself with such countries as China and Iran in a bid to diminish American influence over the rest of the world and in a bid to create a multipolar world. It is yet to be seen whether its geopolitical objectives will be met in the near future amid the economic sanctions that have been enforced by the United States and its allies. The rise of Russian nationalism as a result of the Ukraine crisis has seen a level of unprecedented support for the Russian government and its actions; a situation which has ensured that the government is able to pursue its objectives internationally with the full support of a majority of the Russian populace.

The Political Career of Margaret Thatcher

The political career of the formidable Margaret Thatcher began in the voting of the year 1950 and 1951, when she ran for a parliamentary seat on a Conservative ticket. During these elections, she was not only the only female candidate in the race, but she was also the youngest, at twenty five. Although she lost in both elections to the Labour party candidate, she managed to significantly reduce their majority in this constituency. Despite not being able to participate in the 1955 general elections, Thatcher, in the same year ran for the Orpington seat in a by-election in which she was also defeated, but in this case, the margin of defeat was quite narrow. This brought a realization that she could only win in a constituency where the Conservative party was downright dominant. To realize her ambition, she went looking for one such constituency, and as a consequence, was selected to run as the Conservative candidate for Finchley, where she was elected Member of Parliament in the 1959 general elections.

She made her first speech when she defended her bill, which required members of the local authorities to hold their council meetings in public. She displayed her strong will and character by going against the official position of her party by voting for the restoration of birching, which was a form of corporal punishment using a birch rod. From the outset of her career in politics, she declared herself a friend of the Jewish community. She was not only a founding affiliate of a pro Jewish group in her constituency, but she was also a member of the pro-Jewish association of the conservative party. Despite this friendship, however, she was of the opinion that Israel had to give up some of the land it had occupied in order to bring peace in Palestine. Moreover, she considered some of the actions of the Israeli government, such as the bombing of Osirak, as a severe abuse of international law.

In 1961, Thatcher was given an endorsement to the front bench by the Macmillan government of the time, and in this new capacity, she served as the Parliamentary Undersecretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. However, when the Conservatives failed to win the elections in the voting of 1964, she developed into the spokesperson for Housing and Land. Here, she showed her strong support for her party’s stand on allowing those tenants living in council houses to be allowed to buy their residences. In 1966, she was selected into the shadow treasury lineup where she was strongly in opposition to the policy of the Labour party which set compulsory price and income management, she stated that such policies would not help the economy and that they would, in fact, damage the economy. At a party conference in 1966, Thatcher criticized the high taxation policies of the Labour government, stating that they were going against the established order of British society and turning towards socialism, and perhaps they would later turn towards communism. Her main argument for this position was that low taxes encouraged people to work harder to earn an income.

She was among the small number of Conservative MPs to hold up the bill whose purpose was to decriminalize homosexuality in men. Moreover, she was also among those who voted in agreement of a bill to decriminalize abortion. She further gave her support for the maintaining of the death penalty but voted against the easing of the laws concerning divorce. These stances serve to show that while she was progressive in some of her views, she was extremely conservative in others. Edward Heath led the Conservative party to triumph in the 1970 general elections, and this proved to be an opportunity for her, as she was appointed Secretary for Education and Science. In her new position, she came to draw much public attention through her promotion of cutting spending in the education system. One of the most controversial moves during her first few months was the abolition of milk for school children at no cost. Because of this move, she encountered a lot of disapproval not only from the ranks of the Labour party, but also from the media.

The Conservative government, during its term, experienced a lot of difficulties resulting from the oil crisis of 1973 to the demands, by trade unions, for the increase of wages for workers. These difficulties led to the slender Conservative thrashing by the Labour party in the 1974 elections. This loss considerably weakened Heath’s leadership of the party, and Thatcher took this opportunity to challenge him for the leadership. Heath was forced to resign his position in the party after she trounced him, in the first vote, and William Whitelaw, the former’s preferred heir, in the second party vote, to become the new party head in 1975. To maintain the backing of the entire party behind her leadership, she appointed Whitelaw as her deputy. Because of the influence of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Thatcher was utterly opposed to the type of welfare state which then existed in Britain, believing that such a system was weakening the country. This institute was a firm proponent of the need for a reduction in the size of government, low tax, and more freedoms to allow businesses and consumers to run their activities without interference from the government. It is most probable that these ideas came to profoundly influence the policies of Thatcher, once she took the reigns of government.

In a 1976 speech, she made an attack on the Soviet Union’s aim to dominate the world, stating that while it did not care about what its people thought and put guns before everything, those who opposed them put everything before guns. These comments provoked a response from a soviet newspaper, which referred to her as the Iron Lady, a reference which stuck. In 1978, despite the economic improvement and the high ratings on the opinion polls in favor of the Labour party, the prime minister at the time, James Callaghan, chose to postpone the elections to 1979. The Labour party lost its popularity due to a series of events, such as strikes which occurred during that winter. The Conservative party took the opportunity to attack the Labour government, and this eventually led to its losing a motion of no confidence in parliament. This led to elections in 1979, with the Conservative party winning a comfortable majority in parliament, and its leader, Margaret Thatcher becoming the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Thatcher’s stand on domestic policy, as in all other issues was clear from the start of her administration. During her term as Leader of Opposition as well as prime minister, there was an increasing racial tension within Britain. When asked about it, she stated that the minorities in Britain added a wide variety and richness and that when these minorities became influential, then the local people became frightened. She further stated that Britain had done so much to bring democracy to other parts of the world and that because of this, it was only natural for the British to feel threatened by those coming into the country, not knowing what influences they would bring. The Conservative party, under her leadership, managed to take away the majority of the support of the far right National Front, almost leading to the latter’s collapse. Thatcher, in her duties as prime minister, was required to meet every week with the Queen to confer about matters of government. This led to a lot of speculation concerning their relationship, with some media stating that they did not agree on many issues, and that, in fact, they could not stand each other. Such speculation gave rise to rumors that a constitutional crisis was at hand, but this was headed off when the palace issued a statement that the media stories had no basis on fact. During Thatcher’s term, she practiced immense thriftiness in Downing Street, which included her insistence on paying for some of the things she used.

Thatcher’s economic policy was based on the belief that the government needed to be in control of all the money in circulation. To achieve this, her government came up with policies that ensured the lowering of direct taxes, especially on income, and the increase of indirect taxes. Moreover, the interest rates were increased so that the money supply in the economy would be reduced, and as a consequence, there would be a lowering of inflation. Thatcher not only established limits on the cash that was used on public spending, but also on social services. Because of her cuts on the government expenditure on tertiary learning, she became the first Oxford educated, prime minister, after the Second World War, to be denied an honorary doctorate. Despite the expression of doubt concerning her policies among some members of her party, Thatcher declared that although they might want her to turn away from them, she would not do so. This expressed her will not to abandon her guiding principles because of her belief that what she was doing was right. Her economic policies came under a lot of criticism from the public, especially during the recession in the beginning of the 1980s, which saw her popularity drop. To counter this recession, she ignored the advice of the leading economists, and instead increased taxes.

By 1982, there were indications of economic mending because of the lowering of inflation, but this was shadowed by the fact that there was a high unemployment rate. In this period, the unemployment rate was so high, the like of which had not been seen since the 1930s. By 1983, however, due to her economic policies, the economy was much stronger with low mortgage rates as well as less inflation. Because of the falling unemployment rates as well as a strong, stable economy, the opinion polls in 1987 showed the Conservatives in the lead. This prompted Thatcher to call for elections a year early, taking advantage of the situation as it was at the time. This must have been an attempt to avoid the same mistake which the Labour government had made in failing to call for an election in 1978.

The 1987 elections saw Thatcher elected for a third term, a sign that her move to call for elections early was exceedingly wise for her and the Conservatives. In the 1980s, a ninety percent tax was imposed on the extraction of oil from the North Sea, and the Thatcher government used the revenue derived to balance the economy as well as to cater for the expenditure of reform. She brought reform to the local government by putting a poll tax in place of the domestic rates. The latter was a tax based on the ostensible rental value of a home, while the former was to be charged to every adult occupant. The imposition of this new tax proved to be one of the most unpopular moves that her government had ever made, and this led to a large demonstration in London, which ended up becoming riots against the poll taxes. These taxes were s unpopular that when her successor came to office, he had them abolished.

Thatcher was determined to ensure that the power of the trade unions was reduced because of her belief that they undermined parliamentary democracy as well as the performance of the economy through their right to go on strike. Her government introduced legislation aimed at reducing the influence of trade unions, and despite going on strike in response, the resistance of the trade unions crumbled. During the elections of 1983, an unexpectedly low number of trade union members (some thirty nine percent) voted for the Labour party. Some have stated that Thatcher singlehandedly destroyed the power of the trade unions in the United Kingdom for a whole generation. Notable among the confrontations between Thatcher and the trade organizations was during the 1984 – 1985 miners’ downing of tools. This was due to the proposal by the National Coal Board to cut several thousand jobs as well as close over a hundred state owned mines. The National Union of Mine Workers, was at the forefront of two thirds of the miners in the kingdom to protest the actions taken by the Thatcher government. In response, Thatcher rejected their demands, comparing the confrontation to the Falklands war, stating that the unions were more difficult to fight, making them a dangerous threat to liberty. The strike went on for a whole year, during which Thatcher refused to back down, and because of this, the trade union had to concede.

The strike gave the economy enormous losses and these were further added when the government went ahead with plans to close more mines, even those that were profitable. As a consequence, thousands of jobs were lost and this led to the devastation of whole communities whose livelihood depended on them. Thatcher had noted that miners had had a hand in the bringing down of the Heath government, and she was determined that they would not do the same to her own. She gained victory through ensuring that there were adequate fuel stocks, and that she had appointed a leader for the National Coal Board who was tough on trade unions. Finally, she ensured that the police had received adequate training and were well equipped to counter any riots. Due to the strong policies which Thatcher initiated against them, the trade unions in Britain came to lose a lot of their power, and with this came a decline in membership. Throughout Thatcher’s government, the trade union membership dropped steadily to number less than ten million.

One of the most fundamental policies of the Thatcher government was privatization and this was accelerated especially after the elections of 1983. More than £47 billion was collected from the privatization of government owned business as well as the auction of council houses. The preparation of state owned industries for privatization ensured that there was a marked improvement in the performance of these industries. Moreover, since most of the privatized industries were monopolies, their privatization did not significantly affect their activities since there was no significant competition. While the privatization of government owned industries benefitted consumers in many ways, there were also some negative consequences, such as job cuts. It can, therefore, be said that the results of these actions were neither good nor bad. The sector which Thatcher considered to be most exempt from privatization was the rail industry. She believed that doing so would be disastrous to the government. The selling of state owned enterprises was accompanied by the easing of the regulations on the financial sector to hearten the expansion of the economy. In 1979, the monetary management of the United Kingdom was abolished, and this allowed the investment of an increased amount of capital in foreign markets. The Thatcher administration promoted the development of the fiscal and service segments to make up for the decline in the mechanized industry of the United Kingdom.

Among the issues which were of significant concern to the conservative government was that of Northern Ireland. The earliest of these was when the prisoners in the Maze Prison held a hunger strike in an attempt to regain their former status as political prisoners. For the duration of the hunger strikes, there was an increase in violence in Northern Ireland in support of the detainees’ actions. Thatcher, as was characteristic of her, did not accept these demands, and declared so in public. However, her government privately negotiated with the Irish republican principals to bring their influence to bear so that the starvation strikes would come to an end. After the deaths of some of the prisoners, however, some of their rights were restored, but the Thatcher government refused to concede to reinstating their former status. In 1984, Thatcher had gone for a party conference in Brighton, where she barely escaped being assassinated by the IRA, in an attempt which left five people dead. Despite this incident, she led the Conservative party in a conference the next day, showing that she would not be cowed by the attempt on her life. This action increased her fame with the public, who derived confidence from her action.

Thatcher saw the need to involve the Republic of Ireland in the governing progression of Northern Ireland as a way of fostering harmony in the troubled area. To achieve this, alongside the Irish prime minister, Garret FitzGerald, she created Irish Inter-Governmental Council in the year 1981. The meetings of this council resulted in the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, which made available to the Irish republic an advisory task in matters concerning the administration of Northern Ireland.  This move provoked a protest in Northern Ireland and prompted Ian Gow, a Minister of State, to resign his post in protest. Gow was opposed to any form of compromise with the Republic of Ireland, believing that Britain had to take a tough stance on issues related to Northern Ireland.

In 1989, the earliest confrontation Thatcher received to her position as leader of the Conservative party came from Anthony Meyer. While she managed to defeat the little known MP from the backbench, his challenge showed the growing discontent with her leadership within her party. Her supporters within the party played down these allegations, stating that her landslide win showed that the majority of the party members still backed her. Although Thatcher received poor approval ratings in opinion polls, Thatcher declared that she did not care about what they said, often citing her unbeaten record since she first got elected. Instead, she chose to stick to her way of thinking without having to change to please anyone. The growing discontent with her leadership within the Conservative party continued to increase, and by 1990, poll results showed that the party had been trailing behind the Labour party for months. Thatcher’s aggressive personality as well as her tendency to overrule the opinions of her associates further led to the dissatisfaction within the party.

It was Thatcher’s willingness to overrule her contemporaries which contributed to her demise. Her decision not to be in agreement to a schedule for the United Kingdom to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism made her second-in-command, Geoffrey Howe, to resign from the cabinet. This resignation prompted her leadership of the party to be challenged and although she won the first round, she did not do so decisively. As a result, a second ballot was called, and despite the fact that she wanted to fight on, her cabinet advised her to withdraw. She resigned her position and was substituted by John Major as party head as well as in the premiership. The latter managed to bring back the party fortunes and in the 1992 general elections, the Conservatives were victorious. Thatcher remained in the backbenches as a representative for her constituency until 1992, when she chose to resign from the House of Commons.

In conclusion, it can be said that Margaret Thatcher was one of the most formidable politicians and prime ministers in the history of Britain. Not only was she firm in her beliefs, she stuck to them no matter what those around her thought of it. The policies of her government were directed at making Britain an environment which was free of government interference, especially when it came to economic matters. Her confidence in her convictions are what kept her going since she was first elected to the time of her ouster from leadership of her party. While this may have been her strength, it also proved her undoing because her unwillingness to compromise led to her losing the support of members of her party.

The War in Syria: American Blindness to its Realities

The war in Syria has become one of the most controversial issues in the modern world, and mainly because of its beginnings, divisions between major political parties in the United States have been developed. The Syrian war has brought with it huge human casualties, and although it was expected that it would be completed quickly like the Libyan War, thanks to the support of the United States and its allies, the war is currently continuing. This situation has left a lot of doubt among both the Democrats and the Republicans about whether it was reasonable for the United States primarily to participate in the Syrian conflict.

When President Obama announced his intention to attack Syria after what was allegedly the use of the Syrian government's chemical weapons against its own people, the PPS, it is expected that there will be that wide gap between the two sides in Congress. However, this was not so, because in a rare demonstration of unity between Republicans and Democrats, it was widespread to resist any airstrikes against the Syrian government or direct participation of the United States in the conflict. The fact that there was widespread opposition to the United States Participation in Syria on both sides is a true statement about the sensitivity to this issue of the American that the public feels. In the rare case of unity, representatives of both sides seem to have almost unanimously chosen to represent the true feelings of their constituents, who are mostly tired of the war. In fact, the polls showed that the United States should stop concentrating on solving external conflicts and instead focus on solving a growing number of problems in the domestic arena.

Despite the seeming unity of the two sides with regard to Syria, the fact is that the United States government does not have a clear policy towards Syria, and this may be the reason that the conflict lasted for the past two years. This conflict has, however, also created a situation where it has become difficult for the United States to deal with the diverse consequences such as the development of the refugee problem. It is more likely than not that the continuation of the Syrian conflict will create a refugee problem, as Syrian refugees seek to settle in the United States. The fact that Syrian refugees will likely continue seeking asylum in the United States has become a worrying subject in both parties and this is likely to be another issue which will unite the Democrats and the Republicans in a bipartisan way. In addition, the Syrian war has caused US allies in the region, Turkey and Jordan to have such as the influx of refugees that has created a sad situation in these countries. The fact that Democrats and Republicans, despite having been proven that they can work together, have not yet come up with a clear policy towards Syria, is the most alarming. The United States Congress must exert pressure on the government so that it creates a clear policy that will put an end to the Syrian conflict that will provide lasting peace for the Syrian people.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the Assad regime lost its mandate to rule the Syrian people, and because of this, it must go. It has been a standing position of both of these parties since the onset of the conflict. However, because of the changes of the status on the ground due to Russian and Iranian intervention has led to a situation where it is essential to come to an accommodation. The latter step would an extremely important one because it would curb the number of internally displaced persons in the country, but the number of refugees in neighboring countries creating similar situations to those that failed states the situation.

However, the United States has only been indirectly involved in Syria. This process has involved the government, supported by the Democrats, working to support the Syrian rebels in providing weapons and training. There has been coordination with the allies in the region to train militant groups and help them transit to Syria to fight government forces. Although the United States has not been directly involved in the conflict, in the form of boots on the ground, it has worked with its allies to provide logistic support to the rebels, which apparently has been approved by both Democrats and Republicans.

Should The US Build More Nuclear Power Plants for an Energy Source?

Nuclear energy is one of the most reliable sources of energy in the world today with many nations adopting it due to the relatively low cost of energy that comes after the initial cost of constructing power plants. The United States should therefore invest more in the construction of more nuclear power plants because whether we like it or not, nuclear energy is the energy source of the future. If more power plants are constructed, then the reliability on the other conventional sources of energy, such as fossil fuels, would be greatly reduced.

When more nuclear power plants are constructed in the United States, they should be constructed in secluded areas to ensure the safety of the human population in case of a nuclear accident as happened at Chernobyl. Furthermore, safe ways for the disposal of nuclear waste should be devised so that no harm can be brought to people who come into contact with it and to the environment. Since the construction of more nuclear power plants depends on the goodwill of all the political groups involved, then it is advisable for all these parties to come to a consensus on how to best deal with the issue. The nuclear plants should be constructed and while this is being done, all the safety concerns of those who are skeptical about it should be addressed to ensure that all the parties are working together to create a safe and efficient source of energy. There are many advantages for the use of nuclear energy in the United States and these may be political, economic, and environmental among others.

There are many economic benefits for the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States as a source of energy. One of these benefits is that very small amounts of raw materials are required for the production of a large amount of nuclear energy. Moreover, since these raw materials are required in such small quantities, they can be easily transported from one place to another even globally. The operation of nuclear power stations at their full capacity will ensure that cheap electricity is available in the market and that more people will be able to afford it. Nuclear power is a reliable source of energy because the average lifespan of a nuclear reactor is forty years and this lifespan can be extended by another twenty years. Although the initial cost of constructing a nuclear plant is high, the cost of running it afterwards is relatively low and this makes it a very good investment.

Nuclear power is very environmentally friendly because no harmful emissions are released into the environment during the process of producing energy, as compared to other sources of energy such as fossil fuels. Nuclear plants require very little space to construct and because of this it has very little impact on the environment. It can be used to produce large amounts of energy at very little environmental cost compared to other sources of energy because nothing needs to be burned in order to produce energy. Throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, all the byproducts produced are accounted for and it is carefully stored to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the environment. It has been said of nuclear energy that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is the only industry which has managed to account for all of its waste that has a potential to harm the environment.

The use of nuclear energy may also have a political impact on the United States especially at the international level. In the recent decades, the United States has, on numerous occasions, had to go to war in other countries to secure its energy interests. A very good example of this has been the First and the Second Gulf Wars whose main purpose was to secure the supply of oil. The use of nuclear energy would greatly reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign sources of energy because it would have more than enough for its domestic needs and it would even be able to export some of the surplus electricity to neighboring countries. Furthermore, the image of the United States as an aggressive nation on the world stage would be rehabilitated and there would be a return of goodwill towards it which its recent wars have tarnished. 

In conclusion, the construction of more nuclear power plants is inevitable because nuclear energy is currently the most viable energy source in the world. If it is managed well, then it has the potential of producing enough energy to satisfy all the energy needs of the United States with minimal harm to the environment. Moreover, the low cost of running a nuclear power plant after the initial high cost of construction, makes it a very cost effective source of energy and due to the long lifespan of a nuclear reactor, then a lot of money would be saved. The political goodwill that the United States had lost would be returned through its use of nuclear energy and this would secure it position as the world leader.

The Vietnam War: Were the lessons learned?

The United States was involved in the Vietnam War for about twenty years and this resulted in the loss of many American as well as Vietnamese lives. There are many lessons America learned from this war and the most significant of these were in the areas of diplomatic negotiations, presidential leadership and finally, cultural relations. It is these lessons which have influenced the determination of American foreign policy since the end of the Vietnam War to the present time. Therefore, we shall discuss some of these issues in this paper.

According to Cavagnol (2007), the end of the Vietnam war saw a change in the foreign policy of the United States, which moved from an aggressive and militaristic one to one of diplomatic negotiations. The American failure and massive loss of life in Vietnam may have influenced this because of the negative public opinion that came out of the Vietnam affair. Furthermore, an anonymous article in the Tribune Business News (2010) states that the Vietnam War had made the American government very unpopular not only among the American people but also in the world because of such atrocities committed by its forces against the Vietnamese people. The shift to diplomatic negotiations was a move to help rehabilitate the image of America in the world stage in order to maintain its position of leadership. The move to diplomatic negotiations enabled the United States to achieve its foreign policy goals without the need of resorting to military aggression.

There were also changes in presidential leadership in the United States especially in matters of foreign policy. Bradford (2005) suggests that the decision to end the war in Vietnam saw a turn in presidential leadership in America from one which did not listen to public opinion to one which did. It was the first time that an administration since the beginning of the Vietnam war that had followed a policy different from the administration before concerning this war. Each president since nineteen seventy four has attempted to avoid the kind of situations that happened in Vietnam due to their disastrous effects and have instead moved towards policies which are more peaceful and have only used military action as a last resort as seen during the Gulf War and the War on Terror.

In the cultural context, the American government and people have come to accept that the American way of life is not necessarily the best way for other people in the world. Werner and Huynh (1993) state that the attempt to enforce American values and ideologies in Vietnam ended in complete failure due to the fact that America was giving its support to a very unpopular government. The American government, since the end of the Vietnam War until very recently, had pursued a policy of letting every country have its own system of government, cultural and social system without resorting to forcing them to conform to the ideals of the American way.

In conclusion, the Vietnam War taught many lessons to America, not only concerning how to handle foreign policy, but also to appreciate other people’s cultures as well as accepting the right of the people of foreign nations to self determination. Moreover, the experiences of this war saw a radical change of American policy towards other countries especially in the Third World from one of aggression to place pro-American governments in power, to one of diplomatic negotiations with regimes which it did not necessarily approve of. It is therefore an important thing for America to have learned from its Vietnam experience and to avoid making such mistakes in future.

Cited Works

Bradford, D. (2005). From people's war to people's rule: Insurgency, intervention and the lessons of Vietnam. Special Warfare,18(1), 44-45. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.alice.dvc.edu/docview/199400574?accountid=38376

Cavagnol, R. M. (2007). Lessons from vietnam. Marine Corps Gazette, 91(3), 16-19. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.alice.dvc.edu/docview/221462197?accountid=38376

Forum examines lessons from vietnam war.(2010, Mar 14). McClatchy - Tribune Business News, pp. n/a. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.alice.dvc.edu/docview/458477176?accountid=38376

Werner, J & Huynh, L D. (1993). The Vietnam War: Vietnamese and American Perspective. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.