Imperialism, Imperial Policies and Global/ Regional Status Quo and Its Development Response After Terrorist Attacks of 9/11

Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by a territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that region to acquire fantastic levels of wealth, many of these powerful figures have denied these claims, Zinn,in reaction to these claims uses paradigm example, WW1, as a means for discrediting the upper class who incessantly deny profits during war.

It had a comic book quality about it: two elderly men drunk and quarreling about Pershing (who Valerian had actually seen), neither one mentioning then or ever the subject of exile or advanced years which was what they had in common. Both felt as though they had been run out of their homes. Robert Michelin expelled from Algeria; Valerian Street voluntarily exiled from Philadelphia.

War leads to oppression and leaves negative implications on all people and societies by impacting the poor, women, children, and nations as a whole. "War is a state of violent conflict between one or more groups" (Rasenberger 3). Rasenberger defines war as a state of conflict between one group within itself or several groups in combat with each other, what is not mentioned are the after-effects of war. War itself leads to many civilian and military deaths, an estimated 1.5-3.8 million people died during the Vietnam War and an approximate 500,000 people died in the Iraq war. The biggest tragedy of War is that it always results in fatality, but another key, negative, factor to understand is that after the War many adverse implications arise. Post-war ramifications in the nation fall upon the poor, women, and children, making them weaker and less motivated leading to the downfall of a society. Regardless if a nation wins or is defeated in war they have to deal with consequences of war and find solutions to the impacted people and society. It is essential to understand that there is never a true victor in war because regardless of the outcome, fatality and a fall of morale within society on both sides are inevitable. War has often been the solution to situations that required force or violence, but in recent times this has

When a researcher studies the causes of most wars, the causes for nearly any war are usually innumerable. However, there are a select few wars that even in the presence of several different motives, one underlying object or ideal seems to always be the root of the problem. One prime example of this idea is the American Civil War wherein almost every individual soldier had a different reason for being on the battlefront. One nation whose people had grown into a melting pot had slowly been torn down the center for several decades before the inevitable war came. Slavery seemed to affect everything in the United States during the time leading up to, during, and even after the Civil War. Thus, the issue was unavoidable, and whatsoever conflict

War is easily explained through the lens of social conflict theory, a sociological theory that suggests society tends toward conflict because it is made up of groups with competing interests and unequal resources. The theory proposes that a

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.

Imperialism is defined as a policy of extending a country 's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. Countries during the Industrial Revolution wanted to imperialize due to social, political, and economic reasons. As early as the mid 1800’s, the European countries craved the idea of power and conquering new lands in order to obtain resources/raw materials. They took over Africa, the Ottoman Empire, India, and Southeast Asia due to this as well as for their convenient location. They believed that the more land one owns, the stronger the country would be. Although some can argue the fact that imperialism had a detrimental effect because these countries lost their culture and independence, the end result of this was definitely more positive than negative both short term and long term. These countries would not be as thriving today if this had not happened. European Imperialism in parts of the Middle east, Africa, and Asia had more of a positive impact on the world due to education, modernization, healthcare/sanitation, and more trade/resources used.

Organizing Insurgency by Paul Staniland, introduces the question, “Do resources like diamonds, drugs, and state sponsors turn insurgent groups into thuggish people or do they help build a more disciplined organization?” The reason this question is asked is because in some cases it suggests that “resource wealth encourages the degeneration of armed groups into greed and criminality” and other evidence shows that “external sponsorship and criminal activity can help leaders build organizations in the face of state repression” (p.142). This question is being presented because with different insurgent groups like the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and the Hizbul Mujahidden, having very similar interactions with state sponsors, could have

Conflict between and within nations is proven by history to be expected, but the answer to which countries are at a higher risk for conflict depends on whom you are asking. The reading “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War” by James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, argues that the conditions that favour insurgency are better predictors of which countries are at risk for internal conflict. Determining which countries are at a higher risk depends on multiple logical factors for the perfect environment for rebellion to occur. These factors are based on the political, economic, and organization of the state in question. Fearon and Laitin dissect the formula for rebellion piece by piece over the course of the entire article. By the end it left me in

There are two articles that I'm going to link. I am going to use the first topic that we covered which was the whole incident of 9/11 which is called ' Introduction to Contemporary World Studies'.

The empirical study of Collier and Hoeffler of 2004 will serve as starting point and basis of this paper, as it has initiated the debate about whether greed or grievance explanations about the origins of civil wars are inferior, as well as it was extremely famous and influential - not only in the academic sector, but also in policy and donor circles and the media (Berdal, 2005; Keen). However, because policy implications resulting out of their economic based conclusion are not overall appropriate, the study needs to be revisited with new data and novel approaches.

Collier’s Greed and Grievance stands for an argument that intrastate and intestate conflicts are enthused by desire, desire to better their predicament; the cost-benefit analysis indicates that the incentives of a rebellion compared to silence are significantly high, is known as “greed”. The argument presented in “grievance” is that people dissident due to identity dilemmas; for example, ethnicity, social class and religion. Both play a role in an intrastate conflict, sometimes one drives the other and others the each of the argument are the sole conspirator of transpiring a rebellion. However, Collier concentrated on the economic factors that play into a conflict; the yearning for self-enrichment, greed.

How effective is terrorism? This question has generated lively scholarly debate and is of obvious importance to policy-makers. However, most existing studies of terrorism are not well equipped to answer this question because they lack an appropriate comparison. This article compares the outcomes of civil wars to assess whether rebel groups that use terrorism fare better than those who eschew this tactic. I evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of terrorism relative to other tactics used in civil war. Because terrorism is not a tactic employed at random, I first briefly explore empirically which groups use terrorism. Controlling for factors that may affect both the use of terrorism and war outcomes, I find that although civil wars involving

Rudolf and Findley (2016) look into whether the fragmentation of combatants throughout civil war has any long lasting effects on the ability of peace following civil wars. they state that the splintering of combatant groups, will produce potential spoiler groups that are neither related nor insignificant in the course of civil war resolution. The connections made with the spoiling and credible commitment literatures, the authors hypothesize that rebel splintering speeds the reappearance of civil wars. The results advocate the need to pay more attention to the dynamics of fragmentation. “For example, governments that attempt to splinter groups or to use existing fragmentations within rebel groups to end a civil war may encourage the unintended

The article “Explaining the Severity of Civil Wars” by Bethany Lacina looks at why some civil wars are more deadly as compared to others by investigating a new data set that shows the number of combat deaths in civil wars from 1946 to 2002. The article looks at the statistics behind the deaths in the conflicts such as the era, the type of conflict ant the region that the conflict takes place in. The article also uses the strength of the state, the type of regime and cultural characteristics in a test to see if they are predictors for the number of combat deaths in a conflict.