Difference Between Fair And Ganguly

Haeon Kwak, it is very glad to read your response is similar to my opinions. It is true that America’s foreign policy has huge impact around the world. And lot of other countries are modeling America’s foreign policy to put an idea into practice for their country. This is why I said that United States have been affected many countries. Therefore, it is very important for America to use military force for their safety. If America don’t shows up safety for their nations can affect other countries that uses U.S. as their model. Some people might took a dim view of military force, but we need to know that most countries safety are connect to military force

Many of these commanders had well-documented records of human rights abuses in Afghanistan’s post-Soviet civil war.” (Watch)The United States continued to provide billions to Pakistan even after finding out that the Pakistan government harbored Osama Bin Laden. If the U.S. is going to use the reason that they believe introducing democracies will reduce terrorism it is hypocritical when its supporting warlords in the other part of the world. This also brings out the second problem with the United States forcefully changing regimes, it inevitably supports rogue elemets to achieve it. This further destablieses the region and leaves the country worse of then it

The subject of nuclear development has been very sensitive in world politics among nations that have vested interest. As some countries steered towards the development of such sophisticated weapons, they were met with heavy criticism, from those who already possess them. Those countries that already developed nuclear weapons worked towards minimizing and safety securing such weapons. Different interest groups pushed the agenda for their perspective states to mounting towards nuclear capability. In the field of nuclear proliferation it is politically motivated with different key players advocating for the need to proliferate. The development for nuclear capability has been echoed as being the basis for bringing peace and stability to such countries. Scholarly minds have jumped into the notion that being nuclear arm can bring peace and stability among those states that have nuclear weapons. However as every argument is met with skepticism, there are those scholars that suggest being nuclear arm is a bad idea waiting to explode. This research will locate the case between the two nuclear arm states of Pakistan and Indian and the conflict that brews between them. The analysis and assumptions between these two states will be based on the theories of deterrence and organizational theory. These states present an interesting point of view due to their

Let us start with Afghanistan. Yes, both countries have issues dating back to 1947. The former was the only UN member to oppose the latter’s entry into the world body, a result of misplaced anger at the British Raj’s exit plan. Later, Republican Afghanistan fueled Pashtun nationalist fervor inside Pakistan as payback, tacitly supporting a secessional movement. Islamabad had no choice then but to use Islamists as a counterweight, especially when Kabul cozied up to New Delhi for similar

As the arms race builds in the world the threat of nuclear warfare grows and grows everyday. There could be a new Cold War on the horizon, but not between the United States and Russia. Many countries that never had nuclear technology in the past are now attaining the knowledge and resources that they need to build up their arsenal. A perfect example of this is the situation between India and Pakistan. These two countries have been fighting each other for many years. Recently, each gained nuclear technology for warheads. Now, instead of just fighting and arguing with each other, they have nuclear warheads aimed at each other. Any day the conflict could grow out of control, and the two neighbors could both end up as the world did in "There Will Come Soft Rains."

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.

If we continue down this path of reckless behavior we have more enemies then allies. A good example of this was a poll taken in 2012 showing 74 percent of Pakistan’s population considering us enemies. (Byman 2012)

History of terrorism in Pakistan goes back to the time of Russian capture of Afghanistan. Pakistani powers have long had binds to residential aggressor amasses that help propel the nation 's center outside strategy engages. India and Afghanistan have blamed Pakistan 's security and discernment administrations for playing a "twofold amusement".

During the Cold War the United States had a clear framework that helped guide their foreign policy. Then the idea was to maintain a balance of power between America and the Soviets, and during those days’ by “power” they meant military. Following the fall of the Soviets America emerged as the global hegemon with the largest conventional military in the world. But today with the evolution of technology much has changed. Obama has argued that “This century’s threats are at least as dangerous in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past” (Datta, 2015) This is a time for the United States to choose a course to replace the incoherent path we have been on over the last 25 years (Bremmer, 2015). We have the resources, this is a time to renew U.S. leadership in the world and make America great again. In order to accomplish this, the United States needs to create a universal doctrine and focus their foreign policy on working to improve conditions in the Middle East in order to decrease/terminate terrorism worldwide and stop the murder of innocents. Make strides with Russia one of the only other countries with nuclear weapons in order to stabilize and stop nuclear development in Iran and North Korea. Also the U.S. should make an effort to collaborate with China who is emerging as a world power and could soon surpass the U.S. together both countries could do great in the world, all this without neglecting domestic issues and working towards recreation of the

This memorandum reviews the president’s decision regarding US action against Ayman al-Zawahiri. Last week US intelligence received information from a credible informant which identified Zawahiri’s plan to meet several high-level al-Qaeda operatives, including an American operative, tomorrow at 2:00 am in a compound in Pakistan. The intelligence agencies also identified al-Qaeda’s plans to attack US Capitol and the CIA headquarters. While the president’s policy properly addresses the immediate issues, it fails to outline long-term strategic concerns. Therefore, the president should revise his policy to address steps to repair and strengthen US-Pakistani relationship.

I think it is reasonable for Pakistanis to hold such view of the clandestine operation by the American SEALs. What was unethical was that America acted alone and secretly raided Pakistan without informing the local political army, and this is why Pakistanis are distrustful of the Americans. Osama bin Laden was found and shot in Pakistan, and Pakistan suffered the heavy losses in the war; therefore, the Pakistani military had the right to know and take part in the event. The reason why Americans did not trust the Pakistani people is that they thought Pakistanis were incompetent, and some of them might tip off bin Laden. According to this event, US-Pakistan relationship would curdle as they distrusted each other. I never believe that peace can

Many of these conflicts, and one that has been resolved recently, have involved the country of Pakistan over a northern Indian territory in the name of Kashmir. India turned into an atomic state in 1998 by effectively leading underground atomic tests. This was trailed by worldwide military endorses that were step by step pulled back after September 2001. As of late, India finished up an atomic manage United States that would enable the United States to supply regular citizen atomic innovation to India and atomic fuel to Indian reactors. India has received a no-first-utilize atomic strategy (New World Encyclopedia,

As the SECSTATE I recommend the following courses of action (COAs) to mediate the security concerns of Pakistan and Afghanistan:

By 1964 China had developed its own nuclear weapon which would have likely caused any American nuclear policy in defence of India to be reviewed. The Johnson Administration considered and then rejected giving nuclear weapons technology to the Indians. However, India developed its own nuclear weapon by 1974, within 10 years

The war between Pakistan and India in 1965 and 1999 see also (Bose, S. 2009) has shown that India and Pakistan are increasing their military power and facing the challenges. On the other hand, China is behind the Pakistan. So India is worrying if USA and China extend their support to Pakistan and Pakistan prepares to attack Kashmir. Indian central politics are also responsible for improving Kashmir case. Sonia Gandhi (leader of Indian Congress) is a liberal and her party wants a dialogue with Kashmir and Pakistan both.