The United States And Foreign Countries

Born out of the independence of a subordinate nation, the United States of America aggressively pursued a desire for expansion of power and influence in other countries through diplomacy and force so that they could gain political or economic power – or both. In this brief paper we will discuss the ambition for the U.S. to overthrow the government and economy of other nations, how it was rationalized, and which countries were subject to the foreign policies that the U.S. was going to subject them to; willingly or by force.

As countries seek to avoid alliances that can lead to conflicts, noninterventionism has remained one of the most explored concepts in global politics. Having seen the impacts of the Revolutionary Wars on humanity and being home of people from different ethnic racial groups from Europe, the last 27th presidents of the United States have been adopting foreign policies that promote nationalism and internal growth rather than partnering with global powers. One of the approaches is isolationism, a policy that has always prevented the United States from involving itself in international conflicts. Since his reelection, President Woodrow Wilson has observed this tradition by maintaining neutrality for more than three years during the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia. However, the president should abandon this policy and adopt an approach that will protect humanity from the destructive war in Europe. As this paper seeks to discuss, joining the war offers more benefits to America and humanity than staying in isolation from world politics.

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.

The United States and Communist Russia endured a complicated relationship in the first half of the 20th century. In the early 1940’s the U.S. had encouraged an alliance with the Soviets against their common enemy, Nazi Germany. This short-lived accord began to deteriorate as WW II ended. By 1947 U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union had shifted from one of cooperation to a policy of containment. In 1949, when the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, it was a widely-held belief in the U.S. that the Russians were an untrustworthy enemy with plans to invade the United States. America’s mood turned on American Communists, labeling them traitors and Russian spies. Underlying a domestic sense of well-being in the United States in the 1950’s

In George Washington’s Farewell Address, the first President declared to avoid “entangling alliances” and engaging internationally to not get drawn into war, which the US had followed unless it fell under certain circumstances. These certain circumstances entailed social demands and outbursts for a transition to an interventionist and almost bellicose ideology that drew in the United States to engage in foreign wars and policies.

With the race for the presidential election under way, American foreign policy has entered the minds of many Americans. Like today, foreign policy was of great importance throughout the twentieth-century; it has and continues to play key developmental roles in economic, cultural, diplomatic, and social factors that America has faced. By looking directly at the United States motivation in entering the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II, it can be seen how these factors developed since the turn-of-the-century. In this paper, I will compare and contrast the United States’ motivation for entering these wars by examining the four key factors of foreign policy listed

America may be a relatively young nation, turning 240 years old this year, but in its short existence, it has had a powerful influence over world affairs, for better or worse. George Washington once said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” However, since his presidency, the United States’ position in the world has steered from a steely isolationist stance to one open and hungry for involvement in the matters of other countries. America craved land and power to bolster itself and utilized foreign policy to do so, shifting towards an imperialist position. However, this change in foreign policy resulted

President Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his extraordinary, worldly diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” During the early twentieth century, he brandished that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy in support of his country’s political objectives. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him as a diplomat and Commander in Chief was the superior power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nation’s ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms or elements within a state. Powerful states strive to employ all the elements of power, including diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and most importantly military to further their national objectives. Although a reasonable person might expect that a militarily powerful state routinely triumphs over the weaker state in matters of war, superior military power only guarantees a victory on paper, not in any real war. This paper will show that when one considers a state’s relative military power, weaker states are capable of defeating more powerful states that struggle to formulate

There had been a growing outcry from the public and leaders for something to be done to reduce the increasingly growing number of Japanese immigrants in the West Coast. Subsequent regulations placed on the Japanese in the United States made them aggravated. There was serious trouble brewing between the United States and Japan until the Japanese carried out attacks on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. After the attack on Pearl Harbor there was increased spread of propaganda from the press and local leaders against the people with Japanese roots. There were numerous calls to the Congress and President Roosevelt for removal of the Japanese from the Pacific Coast. On the 19th day of February 1942, President Roosevelt issued the Executive Order Number 9066 (Wheeler, Becker and Glover 244). The Executive Order authorized the evacuation of the Issei and Missei. About 120000 individuals of Japanese ancestry, both citizens and non-citizens were evacuated from the West Coast in what Lt. General John DeWitt said was compelled by “military necessity” (Wheeler, Becker and Glover 244). The most convincing and reliable evidence reveals that the removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor did not meet the “clear and present danger” test. I do not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision.

The United States has been, from its inception, a country that was interested in expansion and of growing its influence abroad. The original administration, that of George Washington, contained a member of the cabinet who is said to be the progenitor of American foreign policy, Alexander Hamilton. Throughout the years others Jefferson, Quincy Adams, Polk, Teddy Roosevelt have led the country based on a vision for expansion and diplomacy that set the table further for those who came after. One man, James Blaine, was also a member of a presidential administration who had significant influence as to the present look of the United States and how the country now conducts international dealings. Early on the expansion had a feeling of empire because many of the founders and men who came after believed that the values of the United States should be spread at least from sea to sea. This paper is a look at how American foreign policy was shaped during the years from 1789 through 1913, and how the nation changed as a result of the spirit of conquest and empire.

Since the end of World War II, long before the earliest events of the Heroes of Catholic Education Series, a strange set of occurrences began to manifest itself as the United States and Soviet Union faced each other as rivals in the subsequent Cold War. The Anomaly Phenomenon, a term denoting the appearance of peculiar formations that defy scientific explanation, made its first appearance in the small period of relative peace-shortly after World War II, but before the Cold War and the formation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Most people are unaware of it, sometimes out of ignorance and other times because of government agencies seeking to prevent it from creating unnecessary civil disorder, leaving only a few people who are aware of it.

When looking at the history between the United States and Latin America, you see many interactions between them, all that aided the relationship that they have today. Despite that the United States and Latin America are in the same part of the world, the beliefs in which they govern may differ. This difference has often been seen playing a major role in the disputes that have occurred in past. The United States and Latin America have faced many social, economical and governing barriers in forming a strong and positive relationship in the early twentieth century, this is due to the differences that the two had between cultures and the constant demand for power. However, the two countries have found ways to meet in the middle of their cultural differences, to form an equally fair relationship.

Beginning within the mid 1940s, there has been a growing debate on whether America should participate within global affairs or if they should aspire to remain an isolated country. Our research attempts to investigate which concept is the correct approach; to become integrated within global affairs, or to remain an isolated country, obliging others to do what they see is necessary.

President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his impressive diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” He wielded that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy during the early twentieth century. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him was the superior muscle power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nations ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms within the state. Powerful states employ all the elements of power to include diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and of course military to meet their national objectives. Although one might expect that militarily powerful states regularly triumph over weaker states in matters of war, superior military power does not guarantee a victory. This paper will show that states possessing weaker military power are capable of defeating militarily superior states that struggle to formulate sound military strategies for their armies, fail to generate the required military effectiveness on the battlefield, or cannot overcome the unpredictability of war.

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.