Identity In Persona

The wars of the Middle East over the past one hundred year are very complicated. When the Ottoman Empire chooses the losing side in WWI, then France and Britain started drawing new borders to the region as a result of the Sykes Picot agreement. After WWII, the United States intervened its force to change the governments of countries in the Middle East. Now, the same behaviors have been continued by the major powers in the world for their own interests, as stated by Jeffrey D. Sachs, the special advisor to the Secretary General of the United Nations on the Millennium development

By 1957, Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman had already established himself in the industry with films like The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries. These films served as a foundation for his work that would only go deeper into the exploration of the meaning of art film. After being hospitalized for a long period of time, Bergman started writing a new film, which would eventually be his 1966 Persona. Persona serves as Bergman’s first film that delved deeper into the process of exposing cinema in a self-reflexive way while tackling themes of one’s identity.

This paper will be using historical analysis to observe and analyze the changes of great power intervention in the Middle East politics over time. To understand how their involvement, seem to create more conflicts and wars in the region. It is important to look closely at the great power’s incentives to get involved. To elaborate more on the central argument, the paper will start with the heating up of 1956 war of attrition and ends with the explosion of the 1973 Yom Kippur–Ramadan war. As evidence to support my claims, I will provide the consequences of each of these wars due to great power intervention. Then, you should expect counter arguments followed by refutations. Lastly, I will conclude my paper with critical analysis.

Lately my mornings are spent getting up between 5:30am and 6am. I get myself ready, I never look fantastic just passable, and I go to work. Part of my morning routine is getting my dog, Donovan, ready for the early part of his day as well. We go to the yard for his bathroom routine, we go inside where I feed him his diet dog food and inject him with insulin, we go upstairs where I place a new diaper wrap around his mid-section (dogs with diabetes leak, who knew?), and he goes back to bed to sleep beside my husband. After we say our goodbyes I head to work, or school, or whatever adventure life has for me that particular day. Rinse, wash, repeat. I had no idea when I was in my teenage years that my life at 32 years old would be a tattooed, married, full time working, full time schooling, boring, Puerto Rican, animal lover. Well, the animal loving part I knew since I was maybe 2.

In the post -World War II era, the competition of global supremacy between the superpowers of the time, United States and the Soviet Union resulted in the Cold War. Many countries in the world were pulled into this rivalry including many of the states of the Middle East. Allies against the Soviet Union received substantial quantities of United States aid and were encouraged to purchase weapons of Western means. Those who were in opposition to the United States’ power received economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union. The United States were inclined to view the rivalry between them and the Soviet Union as a vie for global supremacy. The challenge of attaining democracy in the Middle East has been insufficient leadership specifically in those who shared a common border and were in proximity to the Soviet Union. The United States, in their determination to impede the threat of expansion of the borders of the Soviet Union as well as contain the spread of communion, provided economic and military assistance to keep Iran, Iraq and Turkey politically stable. Although this was the goal of the United States, they actually impeded the democracy and political stability of these countries through its persistent influence in government affairs, determining its future’s livelihood.

The intent of this review is to evaluate the concept of "Just Post Bellum" that the article 's author, Gary J. Bass, developed through an empirical theoretical research about the doctrine of Just War. The way the author adapts the evidence found in the speeches of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter makes us think he tends to justify somewhat recent interventions the United States made in the Middle East when he says: "Both presidents explained that for a free state a just war, must show not only that went to war for good reasons, but also that their conduct war was consistent with that purpose: to help make the most stable region and safe, and leaving affected populations less subject to violence and oppression." However, Gary J. Bass also provides constructive criticism and compiles theoretical concepts of importance of various classical and contemporary authors from the realistic-idealistic point of view of several events that promote an understanding of clear concepts of Just War and their relevance in the context of a globalized world. The author refutes the conventional perception that "Political leaders often invoke postwar evolution as bringing democracy or stability as part of justifying or condemning a war," (P. 384), when in reality other standards of postwar evolution exist.

“In an interconnected world, social and economic catastrophe in one country spills over onto its neighbours” (Chauvet, et al., 2007, p. 3). “Failing States” are often blamed for housing terrorist groups and transnational criminal enterprises, for the proliferation of small weapons, the spread of infectious disease, and endangering global energy security (Patrick, 2007; Lynch, 2016). They also account for a disproportionate amount of civil wars around the world and large number of refugee movements (Chauvet, et al., 2007). Outside countries, and agencies alike often find themselves intervening in the affairs of failing states to prevent “failure” from crossing boundary lines. On occasion the collapse of one administration can initiate a domino effect in neighbouring countries. The recent “Arab Spring” is one of the greatest examples of a “spillover” or domino effect in recent history (de Blij, et al., 2014). What began as an act of protest by a young Tunis man burning himself in December 2010, quickly grew into a number of public protests. A couple weeks later the Tunisian government was forced to step down and within months protests against established autocratic administration had diffused to nearby countries, and Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and Bahrain were experiencing similar public outcry (de Blij, et al.,

The parties involved in many civil wars are often not just limited to the country in which the war is actually taking place. Often, other countries will give aid to one side of the conflict or even involve their own military forces. Recent examples of such occurrences include Russian, American, and Turkish involvement in the present Syrian Civil War and the NATO bombing campaign during the Kosovo War. These countries expend massive amounts of resources and lose great numbers of troops in these conflicts often to uncertain ends. This begs the question: Why do foreign powers involve themselves in the civil wars of other countries? It is possible that such interventions occur because the intervening party believes that they could make strategic gains by doing so. Another theory is that countries intervene when they feel that there is a moral obligation to get involved in the conflict (Kim 2012, 19). However, even when circumstances seem to be in favor of a foreign power intervening, they do not involve themselves. This paper will test these hypotheses by examining the intervention by the United States and Russia primarily in the current Syrian Civil War and attempt to discern their motives for

The Democratic War Thesis argues a direct connection between democracy and inter-state conflict. This argument, is however, split between a strong and weak variant, with the former claiming that by nature, democracies are prone to war, while the latter notes democratic norms and structures that offer avenues for conflict, as to facilitate war (653). Bell points out that as the U.S. public called for war against Spain, “The people, it turned

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

The following wars have been divided between 1.) Wars caused by ethnic issues and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic issues. After determining the cause of war, I will focus on particular aspects of the war predominantly the death toll, how long the war lasted, if core states got involved in the conflict and if so how far removed were they from the region of conflict. Finally and most importantly, I will compare and contrast the two types of wars (1.) Wars caused by ethnic conflict and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic conflict) and determine how these wars were ultimately resolved. More specifically, I am determining if wars caused by ethic issues are resolved by internal means or whether they are resolved by external factors such as core states or states that have an invested interest in the matter.

In today’s society, one of the hardest social conventions for an individual to overcome has been the systemic stratification and classification of that individual’s “identity,” whether that be by the government, employers, or even one’s own family. A person’s race, religion, gender, sexuality, and economic status have become the defining characteristics of a person’s identity. In turn, this has fostered a society in which the courts actively look to ensure that the rights of certain classes are not either prohibited by others, or conversely, promoted over the rights of others. Recent social movements have been charged by the classes that our society has forced citizens in to, ultimately driving oppressed individuals toward seeking relief from

The Middle East has been the world’s hotspot in terms of political and armed conflict since the end of the Cold War. In the last decade, the region has witnessed the collapse of regimes that have ruled for decades one after the other, some through the intervention by foreign military force and others through revolutions. The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 has become one of the most controversial events in international relations as neither the invasion nor the occupation was legal under international law and the fact that the invasion has left Iraq in a state of chaos with no bright future in sight. More importantly, the reasoning behind the intervention remains problematic as Iraq is an oil rich country, but is still struggling

In order to assess to what extent the First Arab-Israeli war was a political conflict, a working definition of ‘political conflict’ is needed. In this essay, the phrase ‘political conflict ’ refers to conflict motivated or influenced by a nation’s government or by the power, interests and security of a state.

Many people question themselves, what is it exactly that makes them unique? What is it that defines them as a unique person that no one in the world possesses? In philosophy, these questions do not have just one answer, and all answers are correct depending on which theory appeals most and makes sense to you. In general, there are two ways people approach this question, some say that a person’s identity is the “self” that carries all of their experiences, thoughts, memories, and consciousness (ego theorists), and some say that a person’s identity is just a bundle of experiences and events that a person has been through in their life, these people deny that the “self” exists (bundle theorists). In this paper, I will be arguing that a person’s identity is just a bundle of experiences, denying the self and the memory criterion.