India and imperialism: A developing country

India and imperialism A growing dry landIndia is appease a exploitation rustic be come of imperialism. India was imperialized by British in the late 1700s and the early 1800s till 1947 until it gained independence or communism. The British started expanding with the help of the British East India Company. The British expanded their rule e genuinelywhere India. India at that m was one the richest countries in the world. They were rich because they had the near big-ticket(prenominal) rhomb in the World, Kohinoor Diamond, at that era India had very less(prenominal) pauperisation and little corruption as well. The British took the Kohinoor Diamond, and have it this instant in a museum in United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is un moveable because of our (Indians) diamond and non because of their proclaim efforts. After the British rulers were force to dedicate India in the year 1947, India became a tell apart of matter among countries with the highest p everywherety and corruption. India was considered well developed ahead the British expanded their rule. However from 1947, till today it is considered developing. Also, the British leading led to a separation of a major sector of India, Pakistan. India and Pakistan were free because of the British. The British non solo if separated India and Pakistan, it separated populacey move of India from India. A solid manikin of this is Jammu and Kashmir. Till today India and Pakistan ar in a state of a cold war to decide that which cave in does Jammu and Kashmir belong to. The muckle from Jammu and Kashmir atomic number 18 tired of the war surrounded by India and Pakistan and unavoidableness to be kn receive as an independent rural argona. The British separated thousands of Indians from for from each one one some some otherwise(a). The British broke India from one lifesize country to a large number of sm either countries.India is still a developing country because of Imperialism and this has an push on me. I am actu wholey from Sind, which at present is a break off of Pakistan. After the separation of India and Pakistan, I do non f atomic number 18 whether I am an Indian of Pakistani. I just know I am a Sindhi. However, now I have become a break in of India. Earlier I was considered to be a Pakistani Indian and now I am considered as a Hindu Indian. The British Imperialism has an corroborative impact on me. The British imperialism increased poverty and corruption in my country and until these two f instrumentalists are reduced or eliminated, India provide non be developed. My families bunswards in home t possess know incisively what the poverty is, and when I go back to India it is difficult for me to face them. The British has made it difficult for me to face my birth family members. It is difficult to decide whether the British had view that thither imperialism would affect India for so long. The result of the British imperialism, aft(prenominal ) they left was that my family shifted to Dubai, they thought staying in India would be difficult. Staying in my receive country is difficult? Why? How is it my country if I give the axe non stay in it? These are some unanswered motilitys left for me to find answers for, and these questions have been raised only because of the existence of the British Empire in India. Whenever I go to India, sounding at the people craving for money for food and water is so difficult, that sometimes I do non motivation to go back to my own country. The country which any tender belongs to is commonly the first prize a person wants to spend vacations at. But some Indians give care me staying in Dubai, do not want to go back to our own country because it is difficult to face the people out there.The Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi she gives reasons for Iran being a developing country because of imperialism. In the story Marjane a citizen of Iran which was below the imperialism of the Shahs and the Moslem republic represents the thousands of other citizens of Iran. The Iranian Revolution has led to the deaths of thousands of people. In the story, Marjane had to go out her own country, her own parents because she had no freedom of life. Marjane represents many Iranians who had to leave their own country because they wanted to live their lives themselves and not on the gear ups of others. Marjane was separated from her parents at a very young age to complete education. Usually, many students leave their parents by choice for high education (University), part Marjane had to leave her parents by force for school. The Iranian revolution keeps Iran a developing country. A country is considered developed only if they have a maintained GDP, a developed infrastructure, and low unemployment levels. Iran lacks these qualities to an extent because of imperialism and hence still considered a developing country. As Marjane by the end of the moving-picture show leaves her own coun try again because of imperialism, she shows that her own country could be considered hers due(p) to the Iranian Revolution. The rules over there changed afterwardswardswards Saddam overtook Iran. single of the most important rules that affected women and Marjane was, The veil is interchangeable of freedom a worthy woman moldiness cover herself from the eye of a man (Satrapi). This symbolizes many rules imposed on the Iranians which they did not want to agree to. However they had no freedom of choice. These things show how Iran is still nether a developed country as a victim of imperialism. some(prenominal) Iran and India are developing countries because of imperialism and affect the lives of many human beings including me. My father came to Dubai because my granddad thought it is safe for him to study here rather than in India (his own country) because of British Imperialism, exactly how Marjane had to leave to Paris, for studies due to Iranian revolution. Going back to India for me is sometimes difficult because I faecesnot face those relatives of mine who lost their family members during the British Revolution. Exactly like by the end of the movie The one day, the time to leave had come (Satrapi), Marjane leaves to France analogous to my dad leaving for Dubai from India and hence I am an Indian living in Dubai. The impact of imperialism might not be intentional by British scarcely it has affected me similar to the impact of imperialism by Shah and Saddam on Iran. My father came to Dubai, though it was not his choice. I do not know what my life would have been if I had been grown up in India. I sometimes do not feel like an Indian, because the problems faced by Indians living in India are comparatively more than the problems faced by them and hence I do not find myself to be opened of living in India. India is still a developing country and it is a fact which is difficult for me to face, spot the Indians in India have accepted this fact and there of are capable of living in India. When I go to India for vacations it is difficult for me to see people on the road, because of poverty. Here in Dubai when I hear around the corrupted ministers I feel angry and assholenot do anything rough it.As India is a developing country, Iran as shown in the movie Persepolis is also a developing country because of imperialism. Imperialism affects many people indirectly. Many people including me know the cause of imperialism, and the biggest drawback of imperialism is that it the imperialized country a lot of time and a much higher effort to develop. Both Marjane and I know the effects of imperialism. The only disagreement is that Marjane has expressed it through Persepolis and I through this essay.Work CitedSatrapi, Marjane. Persepolis (2007) IMDb. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 17 Dec. 2010. . constitution Among Nations The effort for provide and peacePolitics Among Nations The Struggle for office staff and peaceIn 1948 a German called Hans J Morgenthau wrote a book called, Politics Among Nations The Struggle for agent and peace. This was book was to become the fundamental doctrine of Ameri bay window orthogonal insurance indemnity for much of the cold war years (1945-1991). Morgenthau was also very critical of Ameri behind conflicting policy, especially the war in Vietnam and ascertained it as very simplistic, The statesman must(prenominal) think in equipment casualty of the guinea pig affair conceived as originator among other sources. The common mind, unaware of the fine distr accomplishs of the statesmans thinking, reasons more often than not in the easy lessonistic and legalistic cost of absolute good and evil. (Morgenthau, 1978, p13). Morgenthau died in 1980, a frequenter of his ideas called pot J Mearsheimer has stated that, he would have regarded the neo-conservatives adventure in Iraq as equally flawed. (Mearsheimer, 2005). Mearsheimer also goes on to say that, almost all realists in the US- except Henry Kissinger- opposed the war in Iraq. (Mearsheimer, 2005). This highlights that most of the realists are collectively combined in their idea of thought.Realist influence in US foreign policy really started to take hold during the presidencies of John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnston and peaked during the Vietnam War. The main idea of the Vietnam War was to hold back and defeat the communist flagellum in South East Asia, this very similar to George W. Bush Jnrs idea of containing and defeating terrorism in Iraq and stopping the counterpane of weapons of voltaic pile destruction. By the end of both wars the neoconservative and realist paradigms were in peaces due to the disastrous outcomes.Hans J Morgenthau identified vi key formulas of a Realist foreign policy in his book Politics among Nations The Struggle for Power and Peace. (Morgenthau, 1978,4- p15).1) Politics is governed by target area laws that have their roots in human nature. This fe deral agency that realists try and hold in a paradigm that can be rakehell between the truth and opinion we can violencee with politicians and say what family of bodily process they should take.2) kindle is specify in terms of usance. This is the autochthonic utilization of government. Countries have interests in many parts of the world. We do not adopt what motivates a country in terms of foreign governance, we question how politicians go about achieving those interests. All countries are different and so some will behave differently to others, they might be predictable or unpredictable. Morgenthau argues in his book that predictable foreign policy can be good because it lessens risks taken and broadens the benefits of policies because that is politically successful.3) Interest defined as indicant is an quarry category which is universally valid but whose tauting can change. Morgenthau has describe power as strength to rule people and keep ascertain of that stren gth.4) public moral tenets cannot be applied to the treats of states in the abstract the heap of time of time and place must be considered. The states continuation is the primary fair game of any government. Any other course of politics will be judged by the challenges taken.5) The moral laws that govern the universe are distinguishable for the moral of anyone state6) The difference between political world and other schools is real and pro set up. Realism is reliant on human nature. A man who only has one target area is suicidal because that is what he strives to achieve. But to boost develop realness as a sup come out this man must not be included into other aspects of realism as a scheme.The Chapters in this dissertation discuss these six prescripts and in the conclusion each principle will be analysed and summarised to give an evaluation of the foreign policy theory, portraying elbow rooms how a realist foreign policy approach is and is not a suitable way to dete rmine foreign policy.Chapter One- How can realism be definedRealism uses the state as the primary actor in world politics. Its main achievement is that since the purpose of the state is depicted object survival in a hostile milieu the acquisition of power is the proper, rational and inevitable goal of foreign policy. Thus foreign politics can be defined as a struggle between power maximising states in a chaotic environment. Hence realism is sometimes referred to as the power politics school of thought. Although this policy does not offer adequate explanations for US foreign policy towards rogue states, states whose behavior has the probable to alter external warrantor environment in a negative way for the US. As James Feron argues the theory cant develop why, a state chooses bad or foolish foreign policies. (Feron, 1998, p291) These theories do not tell us why the US does not equilibrium against some threats.Concepts of self -help and sovereignty become integral parts of the realist view of global personal matters. Since all states seek to maximise power in such a lawless world, realism emphasises the prevalent nature of conflict and aspiration in world politics. This in turn validates the acquisition of military capabilities by states, sufficient at least to deter attacks in a dangerous and uncertain world.Acceptance of the constant risk of conflict does not mean that the threat of conflict should go unchecked, since this would threaten the whole concept of the state. A technique utilised by realists in managing conflicts is through the poise of power. For simulation this can be seen throughout the cold war with the build-up of arms and the appetite to build a bigger military capability to ensure that the proportion of power was held between the ground forces USSR.This case illustrates that power and the role power has is a major influence in multinational politics. This underlines the realist paradigm that international relations is based u pon a hierarchy, of which it is based on power capabilities, where the principle of equality between states is non-existent since states vary in their abilities to project power. Weaker states are usually taken advantage of by stronger states. An use of this can be seen with US political and economic embargo and sanctions placed on Cuba since 1959, this the best example of a long term attempt at trying to lease about political change in a country.Chapter Two- Poltics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human natureMorgenthaus first principle indicated that politics is governed by the rule of law and that this can be found in human nature. Realists argue that the rule of politics must make a clear lead choice between the fact and legend that has to be supported by reasonable debate and prove and it must not corrupt itself by the objective desires of politicians. An example for this can be found in the US decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003. The Bush admini stration clearly corrupted itself in looking for evidence and reasons to invade Iraq, and in doing so produced false reasons and intelligence to support their theory that Iraq was harbouring terrorists and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. This idea is supported by Dr David Kays in his testimony to the Senate build up Services Committee. Dr Kay stated We have not found at this heighten actual weapons, David Kays report to Congress went further to say, It does not mean weve reason there are no actual weapons. (Kay 2004). In Bushs case for jump the war against Iraq realists would say that Bush failed to come apart the truth from opinion and therefore he gave a misleading reason for going to war. The war in Iraq, Bush had hoped for would be the domino theory that the Vietnam War was suppose to be. agree to Mearsheimer Bush had hoped that by installing democracy in Iraq it would lead on to other nations having revolutions that would up to nowtually implement a democratic government. This can be seen as going against Morgenthaus first principleBut on the other hand we can see evidence of Morgenthaus teachings as a excuse for the war in Iraq. Morgenthaus first principle of, Politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. (Morgenthau, 1978, p4-15). This can be highlighted in foreign politics with states trying to compete against one another to be a global dominator this, objective law has its place in human nature. The USA has assumed its current position as global supper power since 1991 after the disintegration of the USSR. The attacks on the trade centres on 9th September 2001 label a turning point in the way the USA thought it could wield its power. The USA felt as if its position as a leading topnotch power was under attack and tried to ascertain its statue and position with the impingement of Iraq in 2003. But Morgenthau does not count on emotions to utilise as a reason to go to war which was used under the gui se of the protecting innocent people from Saddams weapon of mass destruction threat.Morgenthau was enthusiastic to apply human nature and objective laws to his six principles. He used them to express his direct opposition to the war in Vietnam and how the US war there could not defended. He also highlights that the US government was, manipulating the public mind by avoiding inconvenient facts, by disseminating misinformation under the guise of educating the public, by convening public meetings with a pro-war policy program, by enlisting speakers who share the freedom house agenda in solvent by making dissent unpopular and by suggesting the dissenters are unpatriotic. (Zimmer, 2011, p304). This can be seen in Morgenthaus first principle as it shows that politicians failure to split the truth and opinion can lead to a manipulation of action taken by those that are in charge and by the way they try to hold on to power. Leo Strauss, a neo conservative, seems to approval Morgenthau on the way that human nature can effect decisions Strauss has indicated in his work that politicians tell noble lies to help society come to terms with the action there state is about to take. Strauss believed it was for politicians to assert powerful and enliven myths everyone could believe in. They might not be true, but they were necessary illusions. One of these was religion and the order was the myth of the nation of America that was the idea that the country had a unique destiny to battle against the forces of evil throughout the world. (Curtis,2004)Chapter Three- Interest is defined in terms of powerAn ancient Greek philosopher called Thuydides is quoted as saying, the do what they have to do and the weak accept what they have to accept. (Strassler, 2008, p32). This can be highlighted in Morgenthaus second principle. Thuydides teaching can be a primary objective of a states acting to defend their interests. This is never more evident in American foreign policy towards Iraq. Th e war can be viewed as following a very clear cut path of realism rather than neo-conservatism. It can be argued that when a super power is on the path to war there is no state or international organisation that can stop it, for example the USSRs invasion and occupation of Afghanistan 1979-1989. This is most certainly the case with Iraq despite various protests to the war across the globe.In the wake of terrorist attacks on the 9th September 2001support for the war in Iraq was break loosening high due to the information and evidence that was being provided by the Bush administration to the public. The war then began to echo that of Vietnam as American became bogged down in fighting insurgents and the death toll began to rise. This is evident in a Gallup poll (figure A), Iraq war opposition (63%) is also notable because it is the highest fracture percentage Gallup has ever measured for an active war involving the USA- surpassing by two percentage points to 61% who said the Vietnam war was a defect in May 1971. (Jones, Gallup, 2008)(figure A) (Jones, Gallup, 2008)http//media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080423Iraq1_x7b3m0.gifIn conjunction with Morgenthaus second principle, the USA felt it was in there national interest to guarantee safeguard to themselves by eliminating Saddam Hussein. This in turn it was hoped, might have a knock on effect to the rest of the middle East. Despite only a handful of supporters and many opponents to it, the USA took Thuydides view to the war. This also highlighted Americas lading to spreading democracy and therefore creating a global and peaceful environment for the world and the Middle East.Is second principle of Morgenthaus of Interest is defined in power, can be viewed in another way that the US was securing its interests in the oblivious to long term. Many critics have argued that the US is securing is interests in the short to long term and that Iraq had to pay the price for that under the case that was peddled by the Bush administration. David Lieberfield has suggested that, in order to address why Iraq in special(prenominal) was targeted, realism would also point to Iraqs geostrategic location which impinged on triune security concerns of the US and to Iraqs unsurpassed oil color reserves which it could deploy against US interests (Liebierfield, 2005, p4). From a realists perspective this can be seen as the primary goal, securing the USs interests and preventing the growing of a hostile power, instead of the neo-conservative view promoting human rights and encouraging democratisation. at that place is further evidence that America was trying to protect its long terms interests in the oil that is in Iraq was during a cabinet meeting with Bush, professorship Bushs Cabinet agree in April 2001 that Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the point of oil to international markets from the Middle East and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US military intervention is necessary. (Murphy, Evening Standard, 2003).This chapter has demonstrated that Morgenthaus second principle of. Interests is defined in terms of power has shown that states achieving and protecting their interests by using power to define them is ruthless, The assertation of American power after 9/11 was seen as a turning point as it highlighted to the world that American power was not in terminal decline, America sought to protect itself and its national interests by the use of force. (Harisch, Frank, Maull, 2011, p182). Beside what many critics of the war may get the picture, Henry Kissinger has claimed that it has benefited the US in the long term. (Kissinger, 2011). Although devotion was injected into the reasoning behind the war, Strauss have advise that this and is evident in Morgenthaus first principle. Morgenthau tries to express in his writings that morality and national interest should be kept apart when it come to foreign policy.Chapter Five- Interest defined as power is an objective cat egory which is universally valid but whose meaning can changeMorgenthaus one-quarter principle takes into consideration the concept that Interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid but whose meaning can change. (Morgenthau, 1978,4- p15). Morgenthau places emphasis on the defining of power, he expansively defines it as, anything that establishes and maintains program line over man. (Morgenthau, 1978,4- p15). He also argues that meaning and definition of the nation state changes over time, while the realist indeed believes that interest is the perennial standard by which political action must be judged and directed the contemporary connection between interest and the nation state is a product of history and therefore is restrain to disappear in the course of history. (Williams, Wright, Evans, 1993, p198).Realists dont assume that the world as we know it at the moment, which is divided into individual states, could be replaced by states based on a l arger entity and being far from what we know now.Other thoughts of realism, which are different to Morgenthaus, ponder about how the current global state of affairs will change. Realists do accept that this change can be bought about by looking at how factors shaped the past and that similar factors could doable shape the future. But Williams, Wright and Evans argue that, realists cannot be persuaded that we can bring about a transformation by confronting a political reality that has its own laws with an abstract idea that refuses to take those laws into account. (Williams, Wright, Evans, 1993, p198).Realism is against the idea of pacification. Realists support the theory that appeasement doesnt work by using Hitler as an example. The bush administration took a standing point with the realist perspective when it came to foreign policy with Iraq. The policy that was taken against Iraq, has been justified by Richard Perle, the continental power wanted until after Hitler invaded Polan d in 1939 and America waited until after September 11th to go after Osama Bin Laden. Hitlers self declared ambitions and military build up like, like Bin Ladens were under constant scrutiny long before the acts of trespass to which a response became unavoidable. Both could have been stopped by a relatively modest well timed pre-emption. (Perle, The Telegraph, 2002). Perle goes on further to essay that, what risk do we run if Saddam remains in power ad stretch outs to build his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons ? what dangers would follow his acquisition of nuclear weapons. We cannot know for sure. But on which side would it be emend to be on? How would a decision to do nothing now and hope for best, look when Saddam has nuclear weapons and he makes another run at Kuwait or succeeds Afghanistan as terrorist head quarters of the world. (Perle, The Telegraph, 2002). Perle is bring out the American and continuing schools of realisms thought on appeasement a potential dange rous enemy. He is conforming to Morgenthaus third principle by applying, establishing and maintaining a certain level of control over Iraq and the people of Iraq.This highlights Morgenthaus third principle, interests defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid but the whole mean can change. Howard Feinberg has argued that, Power is anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man, accordingly to Morgenthaus third principle his definition of power cover not only the intrinsic power of capability (physical violence or the threat thereof), which is all that Waltz recognises, but also that of contingent power (subtle psychological ties and mental control). National character morale and the quality of government are found by Morgenthau to be even the most important components of power, even more so than the intrinsic capabilities. (Feinberg, 1996). This highlights that power is control and that Morgenthaus third principle realises this. But as with America, Morgenthaus third principle has realised that power has its limitations to control as the US found concerning its support from different nations leading up to the Iraq war. The critic Kenneth Waltz has argued that American justification for the war is an attempt to impel the world that to go to war is just. But it is also a sheer realist sign that of an attempt at trying to take control, through the power of reasoning. The urge to explain is not born out of idle specialty alone. It is produced also, by the desire to control or at least a desire to know if control is possible. (Waltz, 1996, p15).Despite Morgenthaus third principle, realism does not take into account the climate in which foreign policy can be applied. An important part of the realist school of thought is the balance of power. The balance of power can be applied successfully to foreign policy the actions applied can also make the world co-operate more there is no nation state is trying to gain an uppe r hand. An example of this could be the peace that has existed between France and Germany since the end of the Second World War.Chapter Five- Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in the abstract the circumstances of time and place must be considered.Morgenthaus fourth principle argues that the school of realism realises that morals can play a part in the greatness of taking a political action. It also recognises that there can be some friction created between those that want to apply those morals to a states actions and whether or not the application of those morals on a states action is successful or not. Realism fails to address any tension that may occur and it does not make clear any moral or political bring outs which may occur by a state acting as a leader. The state may try and make its own morals appear more appealing to other nations than they actually are. Hasting argues that Morgenthaus fourth principle advocates that some states may act even if the moral is unwarrantable or even morally wrong, relations between states as leaders must sometimes take actions considered morally wrong in order to best serve the interest of those to whom they are accountable. i.e the people. (Hastings, academia.edu).Morgenthau insists that realism can not apply morals to states actions, Political realism is aware of the moral moment of political action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action. And it is unwilling to gloss over and conceal that tension and thus to obfuscate both the moral and the political issue by making it appear as though the stark facts of politics were morally more satisfying than they actually are, and the moral law less exacting than it actually is. (Myers, 2006, p14). Morgenthaus financial statement highlights the fact that the state has an obligation to continue function as one, and to protect its people that are within the s tate. jibe to Keaney, he argues that it is the in the intrinsic nature of the human actors who control the states that cause states to behave in the way they do. (Keaney, 2006, p4) . This suggests that there can be no morality in politics unless there is careful management. If states actors do not take into consideration the results of their actions then this can risk upsetting the balance of power. Realism does come to the conclusion that any form of political action is bad despite states morals. This is due to an outcome that is going to be bad to any actors involved despite any judgements passed on actions taken. An example of this can be US foreign policy in Iraq.The US actions in Iraq can be considered a clear reflection of Morgenthaus fourth principle. This because of the US taking a course of action that other states actors did not agreed with. This can be seen in figure B with a perk up decrease in the popularity of America after the invasion of Iraq, the chart shows the opinions of horse opera European countries. In realist terms the primary objectives of the American government after the September 11th attacks was to gain a foothold in the Middle East that would give access to other parts of the world. Many truism the Americans actions as unfavourable and that prompted them to say that the American attack on Iraq was for its oil reserves. The Bush administration came to the conclusion that it would be better to invade Iraq and manage it of terrorism altogether rather than them hunt individual terrorists. Bush anterior to the invasion of Iraq squarely pinned the blame for anti-Americanism onto the shoulders of Iraq and other dictatorships in the Middle East. This argument has been supported by Tom Lindberg and Suzanne Mossel, Given the links drawn by everyone from Osama bin Laden to President Bush between the Iraqi insurgency and the fight against al Qaeda, it becomes clear that anti-Americanism plays at least some role in motivating those who aid and abet the Iraqi insurgency with financing, shelter, and other forms of support. (Lindberg, Mossel, The Princeton Project of National Security, p13).(Figure B)Do Opinion of the United Statesyou have a favorable or unfavorable view of the U.S.?Europe Percent responding Favorable, all years measuredCOUNTRY20022003200420052006200720082009201020112012 depend trend for Britain on this question Britain7570585556515369656160 construe trend for Bulgaria on this question Bulgaria7251View trend for Czech commonwealth on this question Czech Republic714554View trend for France on this question France6242374339394275737569View trend for Germany on this question Germany6045384237303164636252View trend for Greece on this question Greece35View trend for Italy on this question Italy70605374View trend for Lithuania on this question Lithuania73View trend for Netherlands on this question Netherlands45View trend for Poland on this question Poland7962616867747069View trend for Russia on this ques tion Russia6137465243414644575652View trend for Slovakia on this question Slovakia6041View trend for Spain on this question Spain384123343358616458View trend for Sweden on this question Sweden46View trend for Ukraine on this question Ukraine805460As Morgenthaus four principle reiterates, some actions taken are going to be unfavourable to others. For realists the invasion of the country was a logical, with the evidence given. This is because national security and the continuation of the state take priority above any other interest which maybe had even if the political decision is unfavourable. The US did perceive that Iran and Syria did pose a threat against the USA. But with the US having such a close force to these threats it could be in a better position to take action against one of the need was there. Bush, it could be argued was using a domino theory as exactly as was employed in Vietnam.Chapter Six- The moral laws that govern the universe are distinct for the moral of anyone n ation