| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "TERRORISM U S FOREIGN POLICY": |
|
|
"Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy", 2002.
Focuses on Paul P. Pillar's famous writing against terrorism, "Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy".
1,484 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper puts forward Pillar?s analyses about terrorism and how it can be eliminated. It also outlines certain evidence that Pillar gives in his work to support his claim.
From the Paper
"Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy by Paul Pillar focuses all of its attention on terrorists attacks on the United States and the approach used by the United States in combating these attacks in the right and meaningful way. Recently the Chicago Council conducted a census on Foreign affairs and discovered that the most captious threat to the United States was International Terrorism. America being a super power is under a continuous danger of being threatened of its security. Of course the government and the United States President takes this issue very seriously in order to safeguard the well being of the country?s citizens but the question is are they doing it in the right manner?"
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy?s Influence on Terrorism, 2002.
The paper discusses the influence that United States foreign policy has had on creating terrorism throughout the world.
4,405 words (approx. 17.6 pages), 24 sources, MLA, $ 115.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that U.S. foreign policy within the last thirty years has had a significant influence in the rise of terrorism throughout the world. The writer cites U.S. involvement in domestic politics in many countries, military interventions, and pursing national interests in other countries regardless of the consequences of pursing those interests, as influential in enabling terrorist organizations. The paper claims that in order to stop the wave of terrorism throughout the world, the United States must stay clear from interfering with domestic political problems in many regions around the world and must stay away from pursuing military operations that are not in the national interests of United States.
Table of Contents:
U.S. Foreign Policy?s Influence with Terrorism
Defense against Terrorism
The Roots of Terrorism
State Support of Terrorism
War on Terrorism
Solutions to Terrorism
From the Paper
"As Ahid Aslam concentrated on the foreign policy priorities of the Bush Administration in his article, Robert Cutter from the institute for foreign policy in focus wrote an article titled ?The Anti-Terrorist Coalition: A New World Order Redux.? This article focuses on the possibility that the anti-terrorist coalition may incite terrorist groups to ruse up and take action against the coalition in order to break it up. The author concentrates on the possible negative effects of placing together an anti-terrorist coalition and having being lead by the United States. The author determines that as long as the United States continues to lead the anti-terrorist coalition, the coalition will only be serving U.S. interests on terrorism and not international interests. The author suggests that it should be the United Nations that should be leading the coalition and not the United States."
| |
|
Is U.S. Foreign Policy Moral?, 2008.
This paper discusses whether considerations of morality have a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy.
1,127 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper looks at America's past foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union and Communism. The paper also discusses the war against terrorism today and reveals that the true incentive behind the war in Iraq may have been financial, although there were moral victories attained as a result. The paper concludes that while morality should certainly have a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, in recent years, the financial goals of the United States seem to outweigh the altruistic ones.
Outline:
Introduction
The Past and U.S. Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy and Communism
Morality, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism
Moral Victories May be the Outcome of Financial Gain
Conclusion
From the Paper
"United States foreign policy has always been about political relationships for financial gain combined with moral idealism (Fox 2000). Therefore, morality has played a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, and should continue to do so. Whether this "morality" is genuine is questionable, and lately the U.S. has appeared to many to be the equivalent of a greedy bully, seeking financial benefits with no care for assisting the impoverished, oppressed, and/or those who may benefit from a morality driven U.S. foreign policy. These U.S. foreign endeavors are done under the guise of morality, which often result in more harm than good for the citizens of nations that such U.S. foreign policy is choosing to target, which is immoral in its very nature."
| |
|
The Organizing Construct of U.S Foreign Policy, 2007.
This paper argues that the Bush War on Terror has replaced the Truman Cold War as the organizing construct of U.S foreign policy.
785 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper states that both the Cold War and the present-day War on Terror doctrines are excellent examples of a "good-versus-evil" paradigm that paints U.S. international affairs in unsophisticated shades of black and white. The author points out that the Bush doctrine is wholly committed to pre-empting terror and not merely interested in containing it as in the Truman Cold War doctrine. The paper concludes that both approaches call for a vigilant and aggressive America that seeks to advance its own security wherever it is deemed necessary.
From the Paper
"In many respects, it may be said that the Truman Doctrine began the "policy of containment" whereby the United States would aggressively confront any expansion of communism outside of the USSR and Eastern Europe. By comparison, the Bush Doctrine - while it would certainly seem amenable to offering military and financial support to foreign countries that are genuinely eager to engage the terrorist threat - is much more about pre-emption than about containment."
| |
|
U.S.-Iraq Foreign Policy, 2003.
An examination of the international relationship between the U.S. and Iraq over the past two decades.
2,802 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the United States foreign policy toward the Middle East has been greatly tested, challenged and even questioned. From the Iran-contra scandal that plagued the Reagan administration even down to the current foreign policy concerning anti-terrorism, it looks at how the nation has been forced to constantly evaluate how much its foreign policy measures up to its ideals of freedom and liberty. It analyzes the relationship with Iraq and how the United States is justified in its current ideologies as it concerns Iraq. It evaluates how its application of that policy not only contradicts the United Nations'(UN) policy, but it also defeats itself, for its application deviates far from its theoretical principles.
Outline
Iraqi History and Foreign Policy
Historical View of U.S. Foreign Policy
Current U.S. Foreign Policy and Its Problems
From the Paper
"The United States also claims that the Iraqi government is still manufacturing and mass-producing weapons of mass destruction; and therefore, it is the United States? duty to stop Iraq from producing such weapons. The problem with this argument is that the conflict regarding Iraq?s alleged production of mass destruction has always been a conflict between the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not between Iraq and the United States. Additionally, before the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was withdrawn from Iraq, it documented the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, forty-eight missiles, six missile launchers, thirty missile warheads, and hundreds of materials that were equipped with the ability to produce chemical weapons (Zunes 2). While early UNSCOM inspections revealed evidence of Iraq producing large amounts of biological agents (to include anthrax), it quickly set up highly technological devices to detect chemical and biological weapons, even after they were dismantled after the December 1998 bombing raids from the Clinton administration. And even if the Iraqi government were to be bold enough to continue to engage in mass production of biological and/or chemical weapons, these weapons would almost certainly be detected by the satellite system put in place by UNSCOM and later destroyed in tactical air strikes."
| |
|
Cold War and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
A comparison of the global operating systems of the Cold War and globalization and the U.S. role in these operating systems.
2,476 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay focuses on the Cold War era to provide a picture of what global society was like during that epoch and attempts to draw parallels between that status quo and the emergence of a new Cold War era in foreign policy represented by the War on Terror. The existence of clear-cut walls and borders is assayed in addition to the differing economic systems in existence during the Cold War. Concepts of realism and totalitarianism are discussed, alongside concepts of cultural hegemony and soft power and the idea of cultural transcendence through material considerations and methods of foreign policy dissemination. The defining systems of the Cold War era are addressed in terms of economic and ideological certitudes that have since been challenged with the onset of what many are calling a new epoch of globalization in foreign policy. They have also been counter-construed by the present administration's focus on the polar separation of "good" and "evil," internationally, and the importance of the American perspective.
From the Paper
"Much extant literature on the Cold War focuses on the ord "perceived," in terms of the perceived threat represented by the Soviet Union to interests of the United States along lines of ideology and control. This became a global issue in which the ideologies of communism and free-market capitalism were perceived to be in a locked battle, the stakes of which were heightened by the positions of the Soviet Union and the United States as oppositional superpowers possessing stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The Cold War as an ideological construction itself can be traced to the United States, which did most of the perceiving in terms of threats to its interests in Europe after the second World
War, but the Soviet Union also did its share of perceiving, as when Reagan's absolutist rhetoric and international acts of state-sponsored terror in the 1980s were seen by the Soviet Union to be acts that presaged a confrontation of the two ideologies. Although there were many clashes throughout the Cold War, such as the Cuban missile crisis,
which brought the nations to the brink of this confrontation, it never actually occurred, and with the breakup of the Soviet Union as a reaction of heightened nationalism spurred on by Gorbachev, the Cold War Ended."
| |
|
Terrorism: Why Do So Many Foreigners Dislike the U.S. ?, 2002.
A paper which examines the reasons why foreign countries and their people dislike America and its foreign policies, yet reject the September 11 attacks.
2,125 words (approx. 8.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the reasons why many foreigners dislike the U.S for the foreign policy it carries. Topics that are discussed are America's support of Israel, repressive regimes, and its support of U.N sanctions on Iraq.
From the Paper
"U.S support of Israel is undoubtedly the most influential factor in the dislike of America. Israel declared its independence in 1949 and it has since been involved in five wars with neighboring states. Israel plays a crucial role in the Middle East due to its strategic location amongst many of the world?s Arab nations. The U.S has been a major supporter of Israel since Harry Truman recognized it as a sovereign country in May 1948. It is quite obvious why U.S foreign policy has always favored Israel. Factors such as long-standing congressional support for Israel, the clout of the pro-Israel lobby as well as guilt over turning away Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany have caused the U.S to form a strong relationship with Israel."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2004.
Compares U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.
956 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the U.S. foreign policy towards Middle Eastern and Latin American countries before 9/11 and post 9/11. The foreign policy is analyzed, its inherent problems are highlighted, and a comparison of U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America is made.
From the Paper
"With all eyes turned toward Iraq and the Middle East, South America rarely makes the headlines in the United States. Except for perhaps tighter controls and security on U.S. borders and waterways since September 11th , it seems Latin foreign policies are not top priorities for Washington. However, recent events in October in Bolivia led to ?a massive mobilization of Indians and peasants?military crackdowns that left as many as 70 people dead?and led to the demise of the conservative Gonzalo S?nchez de Lozada government on Oct."
|
| Term Paper # 1720 |
temporarily unavailable
|
|
|
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy from 1900 to the present.
1,680 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the military activities in the Philippines and Mexico signaled a change in the attitude of U.S. foreign policy from isolationism to imperialism. The author points out that the Second World War and the Cold War caused all of U.S. life to be filtered through the lens of foreign policy such as (1) the facilitation of grant programs such as the National Defense Student loans, (2) reliance on state and local governments for local infrastructure financing because federal monies were committed to Cold War foreign purposes and (3) the more rapid integration of the races at home due to the necessity of integration in the military to have enough troops to conduct overseas operations such as Korea, Vietnam and assorted smaller wars. The paper concludes that, today, there is no foreign policy agenda per se; Bush II is a tabula rasa, straddling two wings of the same party, like a feckless cowboy on two horses.
Table of Contents
U.S. National Foreign Policy Style, 1900 to the Present
U.S. Foreign Policy Domestic Context 1950
Changes over the Last Ten Years
From the Paper
"It would seem this attitude of foreign policy was written in stone. However, one of its early ardent supporters, Theodore Roosevelt, was among those who began to see that U.S. imperialism was not working. In the end, it was Wilson who noted that the drive for colonies contributed mainly to savage warfare. He concluded, in another sea-change manner that would influence U.S. foreign policy at least until another Roosevelt (Franklin Delano) entered the White House, that it would be best to "dismantle the colonial structure itself. His plan included self-determination for former colonies, international arms reduction, an open trading system to discourage economic imperialism, and a commitment to collective security through international organizations, what is now sometimes referred to as multilateralism." That drive, culminating in such bodies as the League of Nations and reluctant entry into further wars, would be the dominant attitude until the start of World War II."
| |
|
Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Discusses reasons behind America's shift in foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea.
1,514 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
U.S. foreign policy is continuously evolving with each new president. However, for the most part, U.S. foreign policy has been based on the idea of containment. This idea of containment was quickly altered after the horrific attacks of 9/11. It appears the U.S. position on foreign policy was forced to change due to the revived ?hot spots? in the Middle East and Korea. This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea; however, the main focus of this paper examines why U.S. foreign policy has shifted to preemption from containment. The paper includes quotes by President Bush and Colin Powell.
From the Paper
"Even with all these tensions, the U.S. continues to hold out that diplomacy will resolve the crisis on the Korean peninsula. The U.S wants open dialogue to be multilateral, involving South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and the Chinese. However, North Korea wants the talks to be unilateral between Pyongyang and Washington. The Chinese believe they are being rebuffed, and also believe that the peninsula ought to be nuclear weapons free. Chinese officials stated, ?This will give us an opportunity to say to the North Koreans and world we?re not going to be threatened? (Bush, 4)."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions, 2004.
An examination of whether U.S. foreign policy decisions are more beneficial to the United States itself or to the world it is aiming to 'protect'.
2,451 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the question, "Is the U.S. seeking to protect its own national security or simply to secure its own national interests throughout the world by having a unilateral approach to foreign policy decisions?" The paper uses two main sources as the basis for the analysis of this question: "Logic of American Foreign Policy" by Patrick Callahan, published in 2004; and the fifth edition of "American Foreign Policy" by Glenn Hastedt, published in 2003/4. These two main sources are introduced, in depth, and the frameworks that arise from these books are then used to frame an analysis of the question posed in this paper; supplementary examples are taken from recent political involvements of the U.S. in Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, and China. The final section of the paper, therefore, looks at the question from the viewpoint of the book reviews, with supplementary information where necessary.
From the Paper
"Essentially, Callahan?s book looks, in depth, at six facets (or ?logics?) of the role the United States plays on the world stage: hegemonism, liberalism, realism, isolationism, liberal internationalism, and anti-imperialism. The book looks at each of these logics, and essentially traces the development of these logics through the study of the relevant policy documents and historical responses to these policies; a critical summary is then given for each logic. Three case studies are then presented at the end of the main body of the text: the debate following US intervention in Kosovo; the debate surrounding the 1990 Chinese trade debate, and the events following the events of September 11th 2001. These issues will be discussed, when relevant, in the present paper."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy Regarding Israel, 2004.
Questions whether the U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel is an extension of domestic politics.
1,218 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The United States' foreign policy to Israel is and always has been highly influenced by domestic politics, particularly by presidential elections. This paper begins by describing the effect of electoral politics upon the foreign policy of American presidents. It then outlines the power of the Jewish vote, the Jewish lobby, and the growing power of the fundamentalist Christian vote. The paper then notes that, although policy toward Israel is strongly influenced by domestic policy, it is virtually nonpartisan. The paper discusses the limits of domestic political influence on foreign policy and the strategic basis for presidential decisions concerning the region. It concludes by looking towards the future of domestic special interest groups.
From the Paper
"In Heroic Diplomacy, Kenneth Stein calls US policy in the Middle East "remarkably non-partisan." The major parties may put forth candidates with consistently opposed domestic agendas, but with regard to Israeli policy, disagreements about aid, intervention, and peace do not happen down party lines. An early example of this was in the leadership of the American Zionist Emergency Council, which was co-led by the strong Democrat Rabbi Stephen Wise and the ardent Republican Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver. A present-day nonpartisan issue is whether or not Bush should be more involved in the peace process."
| |
|
Western Foreign Policy & Global Terror, 2004.
This paper discusses the possible link between Western foreign policy and global terror.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This article offers a brief review linking Western foreign policy, to the rise and extension of global terror. The writer suggests that there is a connection between Western foreign policy, especially American and spreading global terrorism. The writer examines the unbalanced American policy for the Arab-Israeli conflict. The writer raises the subject of the anger felt by Islamic populations.
From the Paper
"American policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict has been neither restrained nor balanced. Rather American policy toward the conflict has provided for an intensive American involvement with a solid preference for Israel. In the early days, Israel was a small struggling country. Survival was an issue and American foreign policy in the Middle East was to achieve peace in order to assure that survival. Contemporary Israel, however has one of the most powerful military forces in the world, together with ... "
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
An overview of the objectives of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and whether it can be considered morally justifiable.
2,462 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the quagmire of Middle East politics and how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy in that region of the world. The paper discusses whether U.S. objectives and its foreign policy in the Middle East are morally justifiable and concludes that they are because the goal of the U.S. is primarily one of helping people of the third world countries, while at the same time protecting her own interests.
From the Paper
"As far as the scourge of terrorism is concerned, it is a sad but true fact that no leader has managed to succeed in getting to the very root of the problem and thereby finding an appropriate solution to it. There may be a satisfactory explanation for this fact; it may be that the very nature of terrorism being what it is: quite unpredictable and also very asymmetrical, it is virtually impossible to find an adequate solution to the problem, and the underlying issues are so many and so widespread that it is an unattainable goal to hope to find an ideal solution to combat 'terrorism'. In fact, it can be safely stated that the West has actually and virtually outstayed its welcome in most parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, rich in oil as it is, and the leaders in those parts of the world, fuelled by their innate greed, grew from being mere allies of the West to real and true despots, and this because of the one thing that all the world needs: Oil. In fact, Osama bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein were allies of the USA in both the US war against Afghanistan as well as in the US war against Iraq respectively. (Going Tactical)"
|
|
|
