Brzezinski Argumentative Analysis

In being so, liberalism possesses both economic and political components. Economic liberalism argues that, increasing economic interdependence would lead to a more peaceful international realm. Political liberalism bases itself on the belief that ‘A just world order assumes the establishment of republics ’. Thus, political liberalism as practiced by the United States during Cold War becomes a critical proponent of democracy promotion by noting that overlapping national interests will allow for a tamer international environment, engendering the notion that democracies do not engage in wars. Although democracy as interpreted by liberal theory on its own does not lead to free market, it may create the necessary infrastructure for such an event to occur. The promotion of democracy, to a great extent, increases economic interdependence through the alignment of core national values and therefore decreasing the probability of hegemony between the states. However, The notion of liberalism was undermined in the literature of the United States foreign policy after the Cold War. Even though the states were economically interdependent during the Cold War yet they engaged in rivalry for resources to the extent that if, assumingly, the “World Trade Organization” came to be perceived as a corrupt institution,

In arguing that anti-Confederate southerners played a central role in Confederate defeat, Freehling shifts historical debate to ground that is at once familiar and novel. Historians such as Drew Gilpin Faust and Paul Escott have identified internal disaffection as the primary cause of Confederate defeat while Gary Gallagher has suggested that whites in the Confederacy maintained their support for the government even as military losses ended the war.[1] The South vs. the South expands the scope of inquiry, looking beyond internal fissures within the Confederacy to the divisions in broader southern society. In Freehling's telling, anti-Confederate whites undermined the Confederacy by remaining outside the nation while slaves sapped Confederate

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

One calm summer night in 1877, several Nez Perce braves, angered by the terms of a treaty that sent them to a reservation, snuck up on a village with the intent of getting revenge. By morning, the braves and their tribe had fled the scene, leaving the dead villagers in their wake. Because of this incident and several other factors, the US was justified in their actions leading up to and during the Nez Perce war. They were trying to contain murderers, take back the land legally owned by the US, and continue the spirit of westward expansion known as Manifest Destiny.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

Lindeen takes the perspective of gun control away from the people. He says the regulation of gun control does not need to be through gun control itself, but through the actions leading to the gun control. Lindeen states in his paper “ sloganeers make the concept of gun control or no control an easy thing to grasp and causes easy thoughts” (1659-1660). He looks at both interpretations of gun control and states there are other ways to help control violence then just taking away guns. According to him one of the problems is people do not know much about the data or the statistics. People only go with the facts they grew up with. People tend to not go on the computer and look up statistics about guns and deaths by guns. He also states the information

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

Like Sanchez’s article, Atkin covers the starving and abandoned pets and zoo animals that are a result of the economic crisis. The video depicts starving dogs with the facts of the article floating over their heads. The article is essentially a transcript of the video.

In 2014, the average percent of students returning from freshman to sophomore year for a bachelor's degree was 64% (National). This means that over one third of college freshman do not return. Many factors hurt a student's chance of returning because the change of college life from high school is drastic. To ease the transition from high school to college, students need to learn how sleep, independent learning, and their mindset affect their success. With a better understanding of how these things can improve their lives, there will be a higher retention rate.

Within the pro-choice world there are many issues that are discussed like abortion, the instant where life begins and the use of contraceptives. This article will focus on not only the issue of using of contraceptives, but specifically the distribution of oral contraceptives (“the pill”) to teenage girls without their parent’s consent.

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.

Waite and Gallagher also discuss the benefits that marriage gives to couples. Including the financial benefits, in that through specialization and by sharing incomes getting married boosts standard of living by thirty percent and this benefit is not incurred by cohabitating, as those who cohabitate do not share as much and are less committed to the wellbeing of their partner. In addition to the financial benefits, they also discuss the emotional benefits of knowing you have someone who loves you and who would take care of you. Children similarly benefit from having married parents as there are more financial resources available to help take care of them and they get to spend more time with at least one parent.