The United States has long been the country of control and should continue to promote its ideas across the world, disregarding the criticisms. Although there is a counterculture that is condemning the imperialistic actions of the United States in the past, the results of these actions are key factors in the balance of powers. Ordinarily, imperialism is a controversial term due to its history, but the idea is not as negative as portrayed. Rather, the implementation had selfish tendencies, but if viewed on a larger scale, the effects were extremely beneficial by supplying nations with democratic thinking.
In a world where there is much to know, there are also many ways of knowing Claims to one particular way of knowing have frequently been exposed as either misrepresenting or excluding a variety of histories, places and contemporary experiences. Feminist commentators have been highly influential in exposing the faction that there is a particular place from which one could get a God’s eye view of the world’ . Thus, the claim of the modern geopolitical writer to survey the world independently of ideology or prejudice would be considered intellectually dubious as well as arrogant. This does not mean, however, that we are unable to make any kind of meaningful statement about the world around us. Rather, it implies that we need to consider
If we simply say the threat is the fear of tyranny from a president swollen with power from foreign wars, we miss the perverse result our constitution has created. In no small measure, our fear of an overly powerful president waging war abroad has had the unintended result that the government has to become more powerful and intrusive because America will not resolve the constitutional issue. Who will decide that the public’s demand that the president and the government act to keep them safe is now excessive? If security requires America to shape the world by its direct military efforts, how
Cold War texts reflect this crisis, using their respective mediums to explore, in a range of highly effective ways, the changing ideologies, values and concerns that complement this uncertain period. John Le Carre’s novel ‘The Spy Who Came in From the Cold’ (‘The Spy’) and Kurt Vonnegut’s novel ‘Slaughterhouse Five,’ challenge the validity of dominant Cold War ideologies and explore the search for alternatives.
The second part of the book goes into analysing the achievements of Nuremberg and the misapprehensions. These misapprehensions are critiqued in terms of the behaviour governments have with the lack of law against nuclear weapons. If Nuremberg set out to achieve a new mindset with war and peace, why are there no sanctions against nuclear weaponry? This book was essential in understanding how the trials set an example for future international law against warfare. The criticism the law takes is extremely interesting as it seemed as if the laws had not been entirely fulfilled.
The issue at hand was supposed to be about our civil liberties being violated, but Snowden inadvertently put the spotlight on himself by breaking the law as well. Thus, bringing up our topic of him being a hero or a traitor rather than just the government breaking civil laws. While the topic of Snowden is a valid issue, it is not exactly the one that should be receiving the most attention by the media. Instead of focusing on who did what, we should be focusing on the public’s rights and safety. The argument against Snowden also brings up the false dilemma fallacy.
“How does 21st century globalization differ from 20th century globalization?” Globalization heavily implies the opening of local and nationalistic perspectives to a broader outlook of an interconnected and interdependent world with free transfer of capital, goods, and services across national frontiers. It also occasionally discusses the less common dimensions of globalization, such as environmental globalization or military globalization . Those dimensions, however, receive much less attention the three described above, as academic literature commonly subdivides globalization into three major areas which are economic globalization, cultural globalization and political globalization. The evolution of globalization is still open for debate according to some scholar’s dates back to Ice Age when people used to travel in search of food, trade and security.
It must be underscored that despite this significant corroboration, the confusion between hard power and soft power still rages on. Indeed, the inability of Nye to clearly identify the parameters of soft power affected its foundation as a potent challenge to the concept of hard power, hence the basis of the revision presented in Nye’s subsequent work. In these works, Nye sought to indicate that soft power does not exist as an alternative to hard power but rather a complement. As he underscored, “our view, and the collective view of this commission, is that the United States must become a smarter power by investing once again in the global good – providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain in the absence of American leadership. By complementing U.S. military and economic might with greater investments in its soft power, America can build the framework it needs to tackle tough global challenges” (Armitage & Nye, 2006).
Globalization is increased because the way the world changed and cultural relations between the United States and other countries who participated in the Cold War, contributed to globalization. During the post-Cold War, the US saw globalization as a strategic tool that could be used to open foreign markets and improve economic