The United States

The Philippine American war is another seductive example of imperialism casted by the United States. The U.S. did not go to war to liberate the Filipinos from Spanish ruling; but rather to acquire naval coaling stations. While the citizens of the Philippines were glad to rid themselves of the tyranny of Spanish rule, they found that there was a great cost for the liberation that the U.S. was allegedly offering.

Countries such as the U.S’s categorical opposition to the extraterritorial application of the ICCPR is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned. The critics of the U.S. position that the

One of the hypotheses is that the United States is unfit to rule foreign lands. This hypothesis is drawn from the text without being blatantly stated. The reader can extract this hypothesis by looking at the examples of countries that the United States has tried to take over. For example, in the Central American countries of Honduras and Nicaragua, the United States overthrew leaders who could have lead the states to social reform. Instead, the states are now

The different policies set by the U.S. must be understood with the imperialist framework developed in the previous section: the U.S. never intervened or designed their foreign policy out of good benevolence, but rather used different discourses and strategies with the same intention, ensuring their global leadership.

The U.S. had similar actions in the Kinzer novel from Part One to Part Two. The major similarity is the attempt to influence a broader area of the world. The U.S. is an extremely imperialistic power and wants to continue that throughout history. Although the U.S. is more so looking for new markets in Part One, they are still trying to make sure that those areas of the world are pro-American. Likewise in Part Two, the U.S. is attempting to hinder Communism so the U.S. goes out and successfully plans coups and puts men who support the U.S. into power. In the case of Hawaii, U.S. men were plotting the overthrow of Queen

entered a relatively short period of imperialism, and expanded its interests into the Pacific Ocean and East Asia when it occupied the Philippines and commandeered Hawaii in 1898 (Cox & Stokes, 2012, p. 33). As the U.S. continued to grow in strength and influence within the global community, it was evident that its isolationist based foreign policy was no longer practical. This realization was made further apparent by the consequences of the industrial revolution, wherein the U.S. was no longer completely isolated between European powers. As a result, the U.S. pursued an approach to spread democracy within the global community including, but not limited to, the various states, international organizations, and international law – this concept is known as the U.S.’ open-minded, or liberal, internationalist agenda (p. 23). Whereas isolationists resist the idea of the U.S. becoming actively involved in international relations, internationalists support that notion, as well as the U.S.’ participation in various global issues and organizations, such as the United Nations (Cox & Stokes, 2012, p. 162). Furthermore, the characteristic and ideology of internationalism is fundamentally the historical nature of the U.S.’ foreign

In the two sources, “Our Country” and the “Platform of the American Antiimperialist League”, the issue of American imperialism is being discussed. There are two opposing views about American imperialism being discussed in the two sources, one for and one against. American Imperialism in “Platform of the American Antiimperialist League” was seen in a negative light, while American imperialism was seen as something that must happen to demonstrate the greatness of

In his 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington warns against developing “permanent alliances” with foreign countries, arguing that this entanglement leads to unnecessary complication (Washington). Of course, Washington’s warning is somewhat grounded in the fact that the United States was a young country that could not handle excessive participation in foreign affairs. Nevertheless, it is important to pay some attention to Washington’s words. Since 1900, the United States has executed more than two hundred military interventions. Furthermore, sixteen of these are marked as “attempts at nation building” (Pei and Kasper 2003). Since 1900, the United States has taken on a habit of intervening in foreign countries with the intention of maintaining peace. However, as indicated by Pei and Kasper, success in improving these nations is rarely the case. Of the aforementioned sixteen efforts, democracy was preserved in only four cases. This low success rate proves that building a nation is an inherently complicated – and difficult – process that should only be executed when the recipients truly want help.

The United States was constructed into a democratic society, therefore establishing the power of American citizens. Once the rights and protections of Americans were authorized, the citizens needed the government to insure them, which often comes by law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies are a major component of the criminal justice system, which enforces the law and provides the community with protection. However, in some cities law enforcement has been unable to ensure consistent protection for citizens, due to lack of resources. The budget cuts in California dating back to 2008 are still negatively affecting cities in the state. For example, Oakland Police Department cut back on traffic stops, drug investigation, property crime, and

The United States has a very long history of intervening within other countries, whether it is for political reasons or otherwise. U.S. intervention started along with the establishment of the United States. This long history still continues strong up until today. Although the U.S. often intervenes, the justified reasons for these interventions are often very unclear, but there are a few repeating trends. First, the idea that it is America’s responsibility to spread democracy to developing nations is a very repeated tendency. The goal of these interventions is to set up an American style government, whether the country likes it or not. The second ideal is to bring freedom and safety to the civilian population of the intervened

The United States has always been the land of the free, a quality that attracted many immigrants in search of a new life. As a result, the U.S is one of the most heterogeneous countries in the world. Today, three hundred and eleven languages are spoken in the U.S (Rhein, 2007). While the U.S has no official language, English is the most commonly spoken language in the country. Ever since the 1980’s, there has been a phenomenon known as the English-Only Movement, which is driven by those who believe English should be made the official language of the U.S. This phenomenon began in the 1980’s when Americans started to fear that immigrant languages would take over English (Crawford, 1998). For the past three decades, this movement has continued to have an impact in the U.S. Some of the common justifications for making English the official language is that it would make America more unified and it would improve the lives of immigrants (Brice, 2014). Another common justification is that it would save the federal government billions of dollars. The government spends large amounts of money every year to keep multilingualism alive, and it is in turn hurting the economy. Multilingualism has also had a major effect on the grades of school children who do not speak fluent English. Since the 1980’s, many governments have made efforts to reduce multilingualism. In order to improve the lives of immigrants, the economy and the grades of students in the U.S, English should be

Some critics believe that the U.S. should have no part in protecting these rights. The critics would like to see Americas interests protected first. If the U.S. involves herself, she must come to the aid of all because “no one else has the reach and resources to do the job”(Sands 3). At the same time Sands says that the U.S. “may not impose its will”(2) on other countries and erase centuries of hate and feuding, but it must do what it can to help the feuding ethnic groups to reconcile their differences. Experts on foreign affairs from both parties say “the United States must be engaged in hot spots around the world”(Sands 2). We have the power and the capability to help many of the nations that are suffering and being oppressed, therefore we must use it to help.

The United States of America has always been projected as a developed and liberalized nation when it is compared to other countries. China, for instance, is a very strict and still developing nation. However, that is not the case. Environmentally, the USA and China both undergo horrible air pollution that affects not only the land, but the people as well. Since both nations make up the majority of the world’s population, it is important to focus on the health and living conditions of all inhabitants.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

Firstly, it’s vital to be familiar with that U.S. pursues a unilateralist foreign policy since post WWII. The U.S. has an interest of “maintaining geopolitical stability is predicated on its being a superpower with global economic interests. The U.S. aims to act unilaterally by maintaining a force structure that can conduct simultaneous expeditionary military operations in widely separated theaters around the world against multiple adversaries who may not even be natural allies” (Liu). The core of the foreign policy as Dobriansky describes it as the “pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere”