Guerrilla War Essay

The structure and power of the UN Security Council is a major factor regarding how some states are able to exert power over the UN. For example, any permanent member of the UNSC (China, Russia, the US, Britain or France) can veto any resolution proposed as they please. As a result of this we have seen much needed resolutions been dropped due to permanent members vetoing due to national interests. In the case of the conflict in Syria, both resolutions proposed by the UNSC were vetoed by Russia and China as they went against their national interests. In this way, the permanent five members are certainly more powerful than the UN. Furthermore, states sovereignty imposes limits on the extent to which the UN can protect human rights. States sovereignty can also mean that states can refuse to sign international agreements that are seen as against their national interests. For example, the US’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Nevertheless, the UN does exhibit some power over states. It can authorise the use of force or peacekeepers or economic sanctions against states where internal conflict has occurred. For example, in 2006 the UNSC authorised the use of peacekeeping troops in Sudan in response to the conflict in Darfur. Similarly in 2011, the UNSC authorised the use of force to protect civilians against the attacks of the Gaddafi regime. Conclusively, although the UN has the ability to authorise various

In the middle 1960s, every male in America had to register for Selective Service Draft at age 18. He would then be eligible for the draft and could be inducted into the Army for a period of two years. If you were a college student, you could receive a deferment and would be able to finish college without the fear of being drafted. However, once finished with college, a students name would be put to the very top of the draft list and could be deployed at anytime. The anti-war movement was about young men being drafted and then sent into war that most Americans did not believe threatened the security of the US. The Vietnam War was America’s rebellious war, a war without popular support

World War II World War II was a pivotal event of the 20th century and a defining

which they were fighting was unlike any war in history. The war in which they

The USA was extremely vain when going to war in Vietnam. They had extreme firepower. With a few weeks notice at the time, had the power to turn Vietnam into a region of radioactive glass. The US’s strategy of search and destroy conflicted directly with the Vietnamese’s strategy of hanging onto their belts (caplan,2012). Unlike previous American victories against

The United Nations failed Rwanda, in a time of need they abandoned the Rwandan people giving them no physical protection. Sadly, things go wrong with the slaughter of almost 800,000 Rwanda people, left defenseless in a country where no one outside cared. U.N. troops were present as only “peace-keepers.” The dispute was between the Hutus and Tutsis people could of been controlled if the U.N. changed their position, but the result could bring more consequences. This conflict between the two social groups in Rwanda,was left to be resolved on its own with many lives lost.

The operations of the Potomac and Rappahannock started with eight on board the Blossom. One person who was named Bagley was reported being engaged in traffic between the states of Virginia and Maryland upward to a full year. There were 30 sacks of wheat on the vessel. On the 11th instant, Acting Master Josselyn chased and ran on shore a small sloop which was attempting to cross to Virginia from Breton’s Bay. The crew managed to escape while also destroying or carrying with them everything except some salt and 2 hogsheads of sugar. The prisoners, vessel, and prize goods are secure and were handed over to the provost-marshal which was according to

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

On 2 April 1982, the British political system was rocked by news of an extraordinary event eight thousand miles away in the South Atlantic. A long-standing and thorny dispute with Argentina over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands – a tiny relic of empire proximate to the South American mainland – had erupted with a sudden and unprovoked invasion of British territory by Argentine forces. Britain’s Conservative government faced the greatest crisis in foreign affairs for a generation (Freedman, 1988). Behind this audacious Argentine manoeuvre laid the assumption that the British Government – struggling with union strife, plunging

Mathieu make it clear, that winning the battle is not only about the effective application of force but also heavily hinged on gathering intelligence information. As such they need to go through a network of cells to ultimately locate and eliminate leaders – the analogy of a tapeworm is made ‘unless you cut off the head, another body reproduces in days’. We also watch the justification of use of excessive force by employing torture methods that extend well beyond the law; Col. Mathieu has compelling logic and a calm demeanor in this justification in the name of France, which I found somewhat unsettling. All the while, neither side is deliberately portrayed as villain nor hero, so this film gives a good sense of the struggle on both sides and, in my opinion, hits the nail on the head when it comes to the complexity of this topic in

     UN and NATO are involved in many of the problems in the world today. Both the UN and NATO have been actively involved in Kosovo. In recent years, the UN has been trying to keep peace in Central African Republic. The UN sent peacekeepers to Central African

How to solve a century long dispute between two countries is much debated over the past few weeks. In 1833 the diplomatic tension between the United Kingdom and Argentina began over claims of the Falkland Islands, a remote island south of the Argentine. Decades have passed since Argentina surrendered to the British army losing the islands. Populist president Cristina Kirchner has exacerbated the tension with her insulting demands and threats. Recently a new era has dawned over the country of Argentina with new president Mauricio Macri. Philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli’s plan would advocate that good can come from evil actions. While Mozi’s plan would be to learn from mistakes and figure out what is best for the people and country. While Machiavelli’s

Then again, what initially was the United Nations plan for East Timor? East Timorese begged to the United Nations to send help, and in 1999 they sent help for the elections to see if whether or not East Timor would be independent or still be under control of Indonesia. And as expected, They voted for independence. The Pro-Indonesian militias and allies in the military were not happy and went on a rampage killing hundreds of people. The UN had to leave, being that they were unarmed. September 12th, 1999 Indonesia made a request to the UN to send troops to secure to restore peace. (11,000 troops from eighteen different countries). The Indonesian Armed Forces eventually left, completely.

Why has the violence between Eritrea and Ethiopia continued despite the United Nations resolution? The issues between these two countries have not only continued, but they have begun to spread across the region . Due to the mass casualties and millions of dollars spent on the ongoing conflict, both nations are looking outward for means of financial survival3. For example, both Ethiopia and Eritrea have since been accused of actively supporting rebel factions in nearby Somalia in exchange for monetary assistance3. Although both nations are struggling with advancing their economies, money is not what they continue to argue about3. Issues between

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this