Barbary War Analysis

The United States has faced many conflicts from the 18th century to the mid 20th century on the road to becoming the country it is today. Wars have been part of many conflicts that have broken out between the United States and various other powers during this time. The wars have cost many lives and allowed for the United States to rise to superpower status and stay a powerful nation in today’s world. But, the United States actions caused them to become part of many wars because they increased tensions between themselves and other countries causing war to be inevitable. The United States actions led to war by increasing tensions making war inevitable in many situations from the 18th century to the mid 20th century by the idea of imperialism,

The Civil War caused a shift in the ways that many Americans thought about slavery and race. Chandra Manning’s What this Cruel War Was Over helps readers understand how soldiers viewed slavery during the Civil War. The book is a narrative, which follows the life of Union soldier who is from Massachusetts. Chandra Manning used letters, diaries and regimental newspapers to gain an understanding of soldiers’ views of slavery. The main character, Charles Brewster has never encountered slaves. However, he believes that Negroes are inferior. He does not meet slaves until he enters the war in the southern states of Maryland and Virginia. Charles Brewster views the slaves first as contraband. He believes the slaves are a burden and should be sent back to their owners because of the fugitive slave laws. Union soldiers focus shifted before the end of the war. They believed slavery was cruel and inhumane, expressing strong desire to liberate the slaves. As the war progresses, soldiers view slaves and slavery in a different light. This paper, by referring to the themes and characters presented in Chandra Manning’s What this Cruel War Was Over, analyzes how the issue of slavery and race shifted in the eyes of white Union soldiers’ during Civil War times.

During the 1801 and 1809 there where many domestic and foreign issues some of these foreign issues that President Thomas Jefferson had to deal with the pirates from the Barbary States and the purchase of the Louisiana territory. One domestic issues was the government that Thomas Jefferson wanted to make.

I agree with the quote that “Wars between states can be explained by the distribution of power and capabilities in the international system.” Power distribution among all the great powers plays an important role for the stability and economy of the state. I believe that war determines who will govern the international system, and whose interests will be primarily served by the new international order.

(Doc G) In this case, militarism caused a country to attack two others as they thought they were stronger than the two. This actually leads to more conflict because other countries will jump in to settle the

Conflicts within the nation of Somalia were sometimes planned as a means to an end. Whereby the United States Government supported a certain regime before they used their power to gain control of the situation and overthrow the tyrant. In other cases the use of national power was used such as the Islamic Courts Union to gain control over Somalia by implementing logical line of operations by providing the people their needs and services to gain their trust. In these situations it would be considered as an irregular warfare environment, because they were violent struggles

The origins of the War of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain stem from flawed diplomacy. President James Madison inherited a divided party and unruly Congress from his predecessor, Thomas Jefferson. Lacking firm leadership, Madison was unable to create a commanding presence in office that would lead to effective relations with European nations. Madison eagerly accepted Napoleon’s declaration that he had imposed non-intercourse on England, souring any relations between the U.S. and Britain. In Britain, diplomacy was similarly ineffective. Already tied up in the Peninsular War in Spain and Portugal and Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, British government officials neglected the United States and dismissed any idea that the U.S. would

War is a dangerous game, many people would likely agree to this, however, very few have ever seen a battlefront. The truth is that war, no matter how awful we can imagine it, is always exponentially worse. In Timothy Findley’s The Wars, Robert Ross, the protagonist,­ faces a situation that he finds difficult to come to terms with, and when faced with a similar situation later on in the novel, he must take drastic measures to reconcile the uncertainties of the past situation. Timothy Findley suggests, through the life of Robert Ross, that one’s need to reconcile the uncertainties of past experiences dominate our actions when such situations come up again in our lives. In the words of Hiram Johnson, a US Senator during the First World War,

In the article, Why has America Stopped Winning Wars? the author, Dominic Tierney, asserts that the United States has entered an age of “unwinnable conflict”. Tierney argues that since the end of World War II excessive military power, an international shift from state-on-state war to internal conflict, the emergence of non-state actors and peace between states have contributed to The United States’ inability to win major conflicts. Tierney uses mistakes in strategy and tactical failures to support his argument.

War is a terrible, but dark truth of the world we live in today and throughout most of history. After the 9/11 attacks, America declared war and soon after started to deploy soldiers to attack. To cover the war in a new aspect, many reports were sent to war zones to get a story for the people of America. One of these reporters was Dexter Filkins. After his horrendous time in the war zone, Filkins made a book titled “The Forever War”. In one of the chapters, it discusses suicide bombings during the war. Filkins, was an inside eye to the war, was not a soldier, but just a citizen trying to get a story for the rest of America. I believe Filkins wrote this chapter to show America about the continuous fear the soldiers and the civilians in the war zone.

Since the beginning of time, man, unfortunately, has found many ways of destroying each other. Because of that there have been many wars: American

Theoretically significant to conflict is social identity theory. It allows “predictions to incorporate who is likely to perceive and act in group terms, to remain committed to the group in times of crisis” Turner (1999), Doosje & Ellemers, (1999). Bar-Tal stresses conflict exists when an incompatible goal exists between two groups. The question of when incompatibility sets become important in understanding the cause of inter-ethnic or communal conflicts for instance, even more importantly; conflict within ingroup. Inter-ethnic or communal conflict because within the scope of peacebuilding, that is the point where building peace thrives the most. There is an assumption that for peacebuilding to be

There are moments in our history where the citizens of the world stand up and for their beliefs, their honor, and themselves. They come together to reform the existing government that is holding them back from achieving their desired lifestyle. When this occurs, most likely, war is inevitable to follow. When war comes to a country, death and destruction is destined. Leaders and rules change, but the pride of its citizens prevails and becomes

Another aspect that plays into conflicts is outside powers getting involved too much or too little to secure their own influence in the aftermath. When outside powers become aware of cross-cultural conflicts they are criticized if they get involved and also if they don’t. Like Huntington’s argument, Samantha Power an ambassador to the United Nations from the US, would have us rather look at the loss of life rather than political nonsense. In her book A Problem From Hell, Power’s writes a quote from Ambassador Morgenthau saying that “unless it directly affected America lives or American interests, it was outside the concern of the American government,” as a way to show how outside powers look at these conflicts . She argues that more international

1. International conflict among countries is more likely of what we may think. Today there are many different ongoing conflicts. International conflict is a stage of opposition, disagreement or incompatibility between two or more states (Malek). The term "international conflict" referred to conflicts between different nations and conflicts between people and organizations in different nations (Mr. Turetzky lec 11). It also applies to inter-group conflicts within one country when one group is fighting for independence or increased social, political, or economic power. International conflicts can be divided into two branches: private international conflict and public international conflict. A private international conflict is a disagreement