United States after World War II Essay Example for Free

United States after World War II Essay The influence of the United States over political and economic affairs worldwide sharply decreased after World War II. US officials found this psychologically difficult to accept, given their country’s key role in the war. Jeffery E. Garten further elaborated on this sentiment: â€Å"Part of America’s outdated self-image is still related to the memory of the Pax Americana, the era of omnipotence for the twenty years following World War II†¦These were very special years in the American experience, to be fondly remembered, even cherished. But they were, looking back, a transition period†¦We need to find a way to put these years and what they represent behind us† (Paarlberg, 1995). As far as Garten knew, the US clearly had difficulty in coming to terms with its changing position in the world. As a result, outward-looking internationalism dominated US policymaking after World War II. This trend was most visible in the post-World War II history of US relations with other countries. After World War II, US foreign policy broke away from its historical tradition of avoiding permanent diplomatic alliances. This departure had a strong impact on American politics and economy (Paarlberg, 1995). The US Economy after World War II US foreign policy conventionally espoused inward-looking diplomatic neutrality beyond the Western Hemisphere and parts of the Pacific. In the 1930s, the US Congress passed three separate neutrality acts, which legally prohibited the US from taking sides in the military or diplomatic disputes of Europe or Asia. It was not until the Great Depression that protectionism was discredited through the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. However, this law faced strong opposition from industrialists and political partisans. These parties believed that the domestic market was large enough to accommodate certain amounts of trade protection and corporate parochialism (Paarlberg, 1995). Unusual Economic Supremacy Right after World War II, a period when rival economies in Europe were exhausted and destroyed, the US was enjoying a strong economy and was even strengthening its technological superiority. High production demands during the war increased the country’s Gross National Product (GNP) by 50% in real terms. By 1950, the US economy was 5 times larger than that of the Soviet Union and 10 times than that of Japan. In sharp contrast, World War II reduced Western European economies by 25% (Paarlberg, 1995). The US economic boom continued after the war through unilateral military and economic policy initiatives, such as the Truman Doctrine (March 12, 1947) and the Marshall Plan (July 12, 1947). These strategies allowed the US to dominate political reconstruction in both West Germany and Japan, as well as the establishment of American naval and air forces across the Atlantic and the Pacific. Allies and defeated adversaries alike were offered economic advantages such as grants, technical assistance, credits and market access – without immediate repayment or demands for perfect reciprocity. The US dollar replaced gold as an international key currency, allowing the US to dominate international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund – World Bank (IMF-WB) (Paarlberg, 1995). The Ideology of the Cold War The US did not carry out these measures without any underlying economic or security motives. Perceived threats of Stalinism (and later Maoism) prompted the American government to secure its political, economic and military influence overseas. The relative power of the US Congress was weakened in order to give the US President unprecedented peacetime authority over the deployment and use of both conventional and nuclear weapons, as well as unsupervised clout over the clandestine operations abroad of the then-newly-established Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Nations who were previously wartime allies suddenly found themselves fighting one another simply because they were at the opposite ends of the Cold War ideological fence (Paarlberg, 1995). Communism versus Capitalism: The Consolidation of Power At the height of the Cold War, both the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) scrambled to find foreign allies that will espouse their respective ideologies. Countries that were allied either with the US or the Soviet Union received generous political, economic and military aid. There were even leaders from these nations that rose to power through US or Soviet backing. The Cold War was not just an â€Å"arms race† but an ideological struggle as well. The Soviet Union. Beginning in 1945, governments across Eastern Europe were characterized with â€Å"people’s democracies† or Soviet-type regimes that had a Communist form of domestic administration and whose foreign policies were dictated by the USSR. These â€Å"people’s democracies† isolated and destroyed opposing political factions, expropriated large land holdings, instituted collective farming (except in Poland) and nationalized almost all industries. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania and East Germany were eventually included into the Soviet Union. With the cooperation of these countries, the USSR founded the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform). However, Yugoslavia was expelled from the Cominform in 1948 due to Yugoslavian President Josip Broz Tito’s resistance against Soviet interference in his country’s affairs (MSN Encarta, 2008). The US The US countered by establishing right-wing monarchial and military dictatorships in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America starting from the 1960s. In Africa, it backed the oppressive regimes of Idi Amin in Uganda (1971), King Hassan II in Morocco (1961) and Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire (1965). In Asia, US-engineered dictatorships included those of Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam (1955), Park Chung Hee in South Korea (1961) and Pol Pot in Cambodia (1975). In Latin America, Augusto Pinochet of Chile (1973), Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier of Haiti (1957 and 1971, respectively) and Nicaragua’s Anastacio Somoza Garcia (1937) and Anastacio Somoza Debayle (1956). In Europe, the US sponsored the governments of Spain’s Francisco Franco (1939) and Greece’s George Papadopoulos (1967) (Bernstein and Sydell, 1995). American Policies and Practices in International Relations (Late 1940s – Mid-1950s) The US radically increased its defense spending from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s due to the Cold War and the spread of Communism in Korea, Eastern Europe and China during the said period. Companies, particularly those related with the defense industry, saw this as an opportunity for immense profits. However, over-reliance of American enterprises on defense contracts resulted in the emergence of the military-industrial complex (MIC). The MIC, in turn, heavily influenced US foreign policy from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s (Schultz, 1999). The Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) The increase in the federal government’s military spending prompted enterprises to do business with the US Department of Defense. There were at least 40,000 defense contractors working for the federal government by the mid-1950s, providing services such as the manufacturing of uniforms, weapons and ammunition. Universities and technology-related firms were used as research and development departments, wherein new weapons and fighting strategies were created. By the 1970s, the US Department of Defense had surpassed the 75 largest corporations in America in terms of economic assets. This led to criticisms that the US was building a permanent â€Å"war economy† (Schultz, 1999). In order to sustain this â€Å"war economy,† the US government had no choice but keep on waging wars with other countries. When the US economy underwent a recession in 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower responded by boosting the defense budget (Schultz, 1999). He likewise staged a number of armed conflicts with other nations. Hence, Eisenhower’s administration was known for disputes such as clashes with Red China over Taiwan (1955) and the Berlin Crisis (1959) (MSN Encarta, 2008). Conclusion The US is still living under the illusion of Pax Americana – a new world order wherein every nation on earth is subservient to American interests. As a result, it used Pax Americana to get away with imperialism and violating the rights of other nations to self-determination. The US must realize that if it is entitled to liberty and justice, the same holds true for other countries. Real freedom and prosperity can never be attained through political and economic interference, as well as through military aggression. References Bernstein, D. Sydell, L. Third World Traveler. (1995). Friendly Dictators. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://www. thirdworldtraveler. com/Dictators/Friendly_Dictators. html MSN Encarta. (2008). Dwight D. Eisenhower. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://encarta. msn. com/encyclopedia_761554032/Eisenhower. html#s1 MSN Encarta. (2008). Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://encarta. msn. com/encyclopedia_761553017/ Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics. html Paarlberg, R. (1995). Leadership Abroad Begins at Home: US Foreign Economic Policy After the Cold War. Washington, D. C. : Brooklings Institution Press. Schultz, S. K. University of Wisconsin System. (1999). The 1950s: The Cold War and the Affluent Society. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://us. history. wisc. edu/hist102/lectures/lecture24. html

Tragic heros :: essays research papers

TRAGIC HEROS â€Å"A tragic hero is a character who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice and depravity, but by some error or frailty†¦Ã¢â‚¬  This is a quote by Aristotle. This quote means a tragic hero isn’t well known for being fair, but isn’t brought down by being bad and unfair, they are brought down by their own flaws. This is true because some tragic hero’s aren’t fair at all but don’t get punished for it. They get punished by their own flaws. Two examples of these tragic heroes’s come from â€Å"Antigone† by Sophocles, and also â€Å" The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar† by William Shakespeare. A tragic hero from â€Å"Antigone† is Creon. Creon is very stubborn. Creon says it will be illegal to bury Polynices. Antigone, Polynices’ sister, buries him. Creon, the king, punishes Antigone because what Polynices did was not right and he didn’t deserve to be buried. Antigone was confined to a tomb, in this tomb, she took her own life. Haimon, Creon’s son, didn’t like this because he was Antigone’s Cousin and fiancà ©e. Haimon killed himself. Eurydice, Creon’s wife, heard how it was Creon’s fault that their son is dead, so she killed herself. Now Creon is all alone. He ended up like this because of his stubborn attitude. He was to stubborn to bury Polynices, and it caused this chain of events, proving he is a tragic hero. Another tragic hero is Julius Caesar from â€Å"The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar† by William Shakespeare. Julius Caesar is a tragic hero because he is stubborn, and thinks he is untouchable because he is so popular. Brutus, Julius’s close friend, was talked into stopping Julius Caesar from gaining absolute power. Cassius, the man who convinced Brutus to stop Caesar, was gathering more conspirators so they could assassinate Caesar. Julius Caesar’s wife gave him a warning about some bad happening, and so did the fortuneteller, and so did the people who sacrifice animals. Caesar didn’t listen and went to the Capitol with Brutus and the conspirators. Tragic heros :: essays research papers TRAGIC HEROS â€Å"A tragic hero is a character who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice and depravity, but by some error or frailty†¦Ã¢â‚¬  This is a quote by Aristotle. This quote means a tragic hero isn’t well known for being fair, but isn’t brought down by being bad and unfair, they are brought down by their own flaws. This is true because some tragic hero’s aren’t fair at all but don’t get punished for it. They get punished by their own flaws. Two examples of these tragic heroes’s come from â€Å"Antigone† by Sophocles, and also â€Å" The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar† by William Shakespeare. A tragic hero from â€Å"Antigone† is Creon. Creon is very stubborn. Creon says it will be illegal to bury Polynices. Antigone, Polynices’ sister, buries him. Creon, the king, punishes Antigone because what Polynices did was not right and he didn’t deserve to be buried. Antigone was confined to a tomb, in this tomb, she took her own life. Haimon, Creon’s son, didn’t like this because he was Antigone’s Cousin and fiancà ©e. Haimon killed himself. Eurydice, Creon’s wife, heard how it was Creon’s fault that their son is dead, so she killed herself. Now Creon is all alone. He ended up like this because of his stubborn attitude. He was to stubborn to bury Polynices, and it caused this chain of events, proving he is a tragic hero. Another tragic hero is Julius Caesar from â€Å"The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar† by William Shakespeare. Julius Caesar is a tragic hero because he is stubborn, and thinks he is untouchable because he is so popular. Brutus, Julius’s close friend, was talked into stopping Julius Caesar from gaining absolute power. Cassius, the man who convinced Brutus to stop Caesar, was gathering more conspirators so they could assassinate Caesar. Julius Caesar’s wife gave him a warning about some bad happening, and so did the fortuneteller, and so did the people who sacrifice animals. Caesar didn’t listen and went to the Capitol with Brutus and the conspirators.

Against Banning Full-Face Veils Essay

Mirayda Martinez Against Banning Full-Face Veils Banning Full-Face Veils would not only make Muslim women feel vulnerable to men as a sexual desire, it would also make them feel betrayed by the country or state they live in. Being told what to wear is like being told what to eat or who to hang out with, it is unjust. Muslim women should be able to dress how they would like without being Judged or assaulted by anyone. The veil helps assure the women that they are not being looked at as a desire and in a way, wearing the veil helps make them feel closer to God. Enforcing laws against Full-Face Veils would be amiss because it would e stripping them of freedom of expression and religion. First, Muslim women should not be Judged by what they wear Just because it is different from the culture and beliefs of everyone else. It is not a crime to be different, but then why do some women get assaulted and harassed for wearing a veil? Just because they do not believe in the same religion as other people does not mean they should get treated any differently than others. Muslim women should be entitled to wear whatever they want to, even if it is a Full-Face Veil that covers them from top to bottom. For some omen, veiling is an expression of their religious beliefs, and is no less or more a part of their religious observance than praying five times a day or fasting during Ramadan, the holy month of fasting and prayer in Islam. † Veiling is a way women express their religious belief and should not get treated any less important than fasting or pra ying towards Mecca; it should get treated with the same respect. Second, the veil is very important.

Reasons Against Tattoos Making - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 728 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2019/05/06 Category Culture Essay Level High school Tags: Tattoo Essay Did you like this example? Do you agree with putting tattoos on body or not? And why? To put a tattoo on the body is every ones personal matter and decision, but while making such choice one should be very careful and need to consider all of the aspects and consequences. While considering making body tattoos there should be proper analysis of all of the possible penalties which can come in your way that can be both long and short term. Although tattoos on the body look cool and charming to the other person, still I do not agree with making tattoos on my body because of the religious reasons as my religion Islam does not allow makting tattoos on the body. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Reasons Against Tattoos Making" essay for you Create order Tattoos leave permanent marks on the body and just because they make you feel good and excited or because your friend ask you to do so does not make any sense. You decision will be with you throughout your life. The permanent tattoos with you all the time. Once you put the tattoos on body just because of the excitement at once, you have to bear it throughout your life. So putting tattoos should be taken very carefully with proper thinking. I do not agree of putting tattoos on my body. I saw many people who are happy when they get fresh tattoos on their body but after sometime they get annoy and want to get rid of it. Although my reason is totally different. I do not agree with putting tattoos on body because my religion Islam do not allow me to do this. My religion has not given me permission to do so. According to narration by Abu Juhayfah, Our Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) has cursed the one who put tattoos and the one who has done the tattoo. Islam does not allow tattoos on body because according to the Islamic Scholars, tattoos are considered as the mutilating of the body that Allah has created, it inflicts the unnecessary pain to the person which can also result in any kind of infection or disease and this is also considered as a deception because tattoos cover your natural body created by Allah. It seems that you are not thankful for Allah for the body he gave to you and it is considered as the sign of ungrateful. Another main reason that I do not support the idea of putting tattoos on my body is that we, Muslims are supposed to pray five times a day and while praying we should be in a ritual state of cleanliness and purity. For this, wudu is necessary before each prayer and while having tattoos on the body, I will not be able to clean my body as tattoos cover my natural skin which I am supposed to wash with water during wudu. In case there are some temporary tattoos like henna or stickers, I agree on them if they do not take form of any image. Our prophet has cursed the one who violates the body. Tattoos cover your natural skin and while doing wudu the water will not be able to reach your skin and it is covered by some ink. Wudu has a purpose of cleaning dirt from you and allow you to mark your attendance five times a day in neat and clean clothes and body. Therefore with the permanent marks on skin, we cannot do wudu and would be a sin. These religious reasons are important for me to consider and because of these reasons I do not support the idea of putting tattoos on my body as it would be a clear violation of the orders of Allah and Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him). It would be a sin that I know that something is not right and then still I do that. If a person had a desire of tattoo and then he embraced Islam it would not be a sin for him otherwise it is responsibility of every Muslim to take care of these orders and act upon the assigned orders by our religion. Work Cited AbuUbaida. Ruling of Tattoos in Islam. MuslimConverts.com, Accessed date: Aug 31, 2018 Hess, Philip. Dec 31, 2017. Why is it wrong to put tattoos on your body if you believe in god?. Quora, Accessed date: Aug 31, 2018 Huda. April 30, 2018. Are Muslims Allowed to Get Tattoos?. ThoughCo., Accessed date: Aug 31, 2018