The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essayEssay Writing Service

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essayEssay Writing Service The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Bush Doctrine reflects the U.S. President Bush’s policy aimed at spreading democracy at the global level. The U.S. has developed a representative form of democracy, which serves the public interests (Gurtov, M. 2005).   However, the Bush Doctrine has its strengths and its weaknesses because people have different attitudes toward the effectiveness of the Bush Doctrine. Actually, the Bush Doctrine is one of the widely used phrases, which refers to the key principles of George W. Bush’s foreign policy (Buckley Singh, 2006).   The phrase â€Å"the Bush Doctrine† was first used by Charles Krauthammer, an outstanding American political commentator, who utilized it in 2001 to define the Bush Administration’s policy aimed at withdrawing from signing the ABM treaty and the Kyoto protocol (Fiala, 2008).   Later, after the tragic event of 9/1, the phrase â⠂¬Å"the Bush Doctrine† was used to define the policy developed by the United States with the major goal to secure the country and its citizens against those countries that assist terrorists. This policy was utilized to justify the U. S. led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001(Jervis, 2003). President Bush used the doctrine in his numerous speeches. According to Andrew Gordon Fiala (2008), â€Å"it is stated in the policy of the National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS)†(p. 121). Besides, the Bush Doctrine was used in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to researchers, â€Å"traditionally, the United States has employed its military forces in retaliation for an attack rather than striking first itself† (The Limits of Power, 2002, p.1).   The Bush Doctrine can be viewed as the neoconservative justification of the military domination of the United States at the global level, specially developed to promote democracy, but it has not only its streng ths, but also its weaknesses.The Bush Doctrine: Background Information  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Bush Doctrine is an important approach to solving various global issues. According to Andrew Gordon Fiala (2008), the Bush Doctrine is â€Å"an idealistic approach to international relations that imagines a world transformed by the promise of democracy and that sees military force as an appropriate means to utilize in pursuit of this goal† (p. 121). The Bush Doctrine has several elements or components. First,   the Bush Doctrine generates a strong belief in the significant role of the U.S. domestic regime in determining and developing its foreign policy, as well as the corresponding judgments that this doctrine creates â€Å"an opportune time to transform international politics† (Jervis, 2003, p. 365). Democratic regime is associated with peace and peaceful international environment. Democracy lies in the basis of American ideals. According to Robert Jervis (2005), â€Å"this means that he current era is one of the great opportunities because there is almost universal agreement on the virtues of democracy†(p. 351). Second, the Bush Doctrine generates the public perception of the existence of great threats that should be defeated only by the use of new and strong policies, the so-called preventive wars (Fiala, 2008). Major threats come from terrorists, connected with the use of the weapons of mass destruction and tyrannical regimes (Buckley Singh, 2006). Third, the Bush Doctrine involves the â€Å"willingness to act unilaterally when necessary† (Jervis, 2003, p. 365). The third element of the Bush Doctrine places emphasis on the inability to provide adequate defense and effectively deal with these threats. Some preventive actions are necessary, including war actions (Jervis, 2003). Fourth, the Bush Doctrine is based on the belief that democratic peace and stability worldwide require the United States to â€Å"ass ert its primacy in the world politics† (Jervis, 2003, p. 365). This element of the Bush Doctrine can be explained by the fact that â€Å"although the widest possible support should be sought, others cannot have a veto on American action† (Jervis, 2005, p. 351). The Bush Doctrine was represented in the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2002.Actually, the formulation of the Bush Doctrine involves the collection of the major strategic principles, which are associated with further practical policy decisions and a set of premises for maintaining and guiding the U.S. foreign policy. There are two key approaches in the doctrine, including preemptive strikes against all types of potential threats and promotion of the democratic regime change globally (Dunmire, 2011). According to the Bush Administration policy, the United States faces the global war, which can be defined as the war of political ideology (Dunmire, 2011).   This ideology is common among the ene mies of the United States, and demonstrates severe criticism of democracy. Researchers highlight the role of neo-conservatism of American foreign policy that was defined by the Bush Doctrine. In fact, the Bush Doctrine justifies the U.S. decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and contribute to deposing the government of Saddam Hussein (Schmidt Williams, 2008).In general, the National Security Strategy provides four main components that are identified as the core principles of the Bush Doctrine: preemption, the establishment of the military primacy of the United States, the development of new multilateralism, and the spread of democracy globally. The National Security Strategy document placed emphasis on preemption, saying that â€Å"America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few† (The National Security Strategy of the United States of Ameri ca, 2002). The doctrine was based on the defense of the state, its citizens and their interests both at home and abroad. The foundation of the Bush Doctrine is military strength (Fiala, 2008). The U.S. is engaged in all types of preemptive strikes to stop all possible threats. This fact means that the Bush Doctrine highlights the major goal of the U.S. policy – â€Å"to build and maintain the U.S. military strength beyond challenge† (Hayden, 2013, p. 65).The Major Strengths of the Bush Doctrine  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Bush Doctrine has a number of strengths. President Bush managed to develop an assertive and powerful military doctrine that is focused on providing the proper methods to avoid the threat of armed intervention. President Bush highlights the importance of the U.S. protection and security strategies, which help to stop the nations that are developing weapons to put the country and its citizens in peril. As a result, the Bush Doctrine is based on the use of â€Å"conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons† (The Limits of Power, 2002, p.1).  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Bush Doctrine has been used to justify and highlight the military adventures of Americans. It has been accepted as an effective tool to support the military operations and the current war policies (Fiala, 2008). This fact means that the Bush Doctrine has been successful. According to researchers, â€Å"it is one of the reasons that the nation fell obediently behind the president during the early years of the war on terrorism†(Fiala, 2008, p. 71). Moreover, the Bush Doctrine justifies the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush Doctrine guarantees the idealism of American Exceptionalism because of its focus on foreign intervention and considerable changes in political regime (Renshon, 2010).   Presiden t Bush explained the effectiveness of his doctrine in the following way:We have a place, all of us in a long story – a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is a story of a new world that became a friend and liberator o the old, a story of a slave holding society, that became a servant of freedom, the story of a power that went into the world to protect, but not possess, to defend, but not to conquer. It is the American story – a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals (qtd. in Filala, 2008, p. 71).The Bush Doctrine is closely connected with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and deals with the strategic tactics. The Bush Doctrine was used to respond to the strategic challenges caused by the events of 9/11 (Kaufman, 2007; Renshon, 2010).   The Bush Administration managed to use the doctrine to find out who should bear responsibility for the terrorist attack, as well as to assess the meaning of the attack . According to Stanley A. Renshon (2010), â€Å"the speed and range of the Bush Doctrine’s substantive development coupled with the geographic range of its actionable implications are a very substantial, but little acknowledged aspect of the administration’s response† (p. 30).  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   There are many examples that demonstrate the successes of the Bush Doctrine. The U.S. succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, providing the opportunities for democratic elections in the country and facilitating the victory of the new president (Kaufman, 2007).   In addition, the Bush Doctrine â€Å"deserves credit for keeping Al-Qaeda on the run thwarting its ambitions to mount another devastating attack on the United States†( Kaufman, 2007, p. 46). According to President Bush and his Administration, the promotion of democratic regime abroad is crucial to the success of the United States in the war policy against the spread of terrorism (Jervis, 2003). Bush states that it is the major goal of the U.S. government’s grand strategy aimed at the expansion of the political and economic power of the United States (Monten, 2005; Jervis, 2003).The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay part 2

Gods Attributes Essays - Conceptions Of God, God In Christianity

Gods Attributes Essays - Conceptions Of God, God In Christianity Gods Attributes According to Christianity, the attributes of God can be organized into two categories: Physical and ethical or moral. Some terms address Gods transcendence of physical ideology, others address Gods Devine intellect and will. There are a multitude of terms from which to choose when labeling the attributes of God. Therefore, this paper will only deal with the fundamental terms that are put forth by the sacred scriptures. God is, according to the Old and New Testaments: Omnipotent, eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, and infinite in intellect and will The omnipotent characteristic of God is often referred to in the Bible. God is said to have all the power for the benefit of man . According the John, God said that men could have no power against him . Christians believe that god has the power to free people from the most trying circumstances and single handedly defeat great nations . God can, in the eyes of Christians, do anything. Numerous biblical personalities have said that God is eternal. The Lord is said to be and ever lasting father that will reign forever . God is said to be a king in an everlasting Kingdom . God has always been and always will be. He coexists with time; he does not exist in time. The Omni presence of God is one argument that is difficult to uphold; it is extremely reliant upon peoples interpretations of the most elementary Biblical passages. Most Christians will testify that God is always everywhere. There are no shortages of passages that say that Gods eyes are here and there, and that his eyes are everywhere . There are also several scriptures that say the Lords kingdom is in the heavens above and those who believe will be in his presence . However, as far as I can see, there are no passages that say that God is always everywhere . Is the Holy Trinity the Only way to support the Belief in the existence of an infinitely immense God? No. The Trinity is based on the idea that God can manifest himself through various mediums. Gods presence may be in burning bushes; it may be in the body of mortal beings such as Jesus of Nazareth. God could, according to the Trinity, be in many places at once, being in many beings . However, we will run into a problem when we use the Holy Trinity to explain the words that God said in Genesis 1:26. This passage proves, not that there is more than one god, but that there are two or more beings that are a part of one God. These beings, according to Genesis 1:26, share a common image. Most Christians who believe in the Holy Trinity believe in an omnipotent abstract God, the Holy Ghost or Spirit, and the Son who is, according to the Trinity, the manly manifestation of the omnipotent God. In the Bible it says that no man may see God and live to tell of it, so how could Jesus Disciples spr ead the good news and speak of Jesus and still manage to live? Furthermore, the Holy Spirit (Ghost) is a gift from God, not God himself. We cannot, with the Holy Trinity or any other ideology, explain the literally omnipresent God. However, if one believes that God spreads his seeds by giving the gift of life, than we can say that, in a sense, God is everywhere, because man is, in a sense, everywhere.

Opeidus Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Opeidus - Essay Example When Oedipus heard of the prophecy, he attempted to change it by leaving what he thought was his birthplace. He didn’t trust himself enough to not kill the man he thought was his father and then marry his mother: â€Å"So for years I’ve given Corinth a wide berth/†¦so I wouldn’t kill my father.† It was because he didn’t trust himself to not perform these acts he would never knowingly do that he put himself in a position to unknowingly perform them. Tiresias serves as a foil to Oedipus; he is a blind man that sees the truth of the situation. His words serve as a way for Oedipus to take responsibility for what he’s done: â€Å"How terrible—to see the truth/ when the truth is only pain to him who sees!† Because Oedipus was unable to see the truth of the situation, he punished himself by blinding himself. He thought it was a fitting punishment because his eyes did not allow him to see the truth as it was. â€Å"But the hand that struck my eyes was mine,/ mine alone—no one else—/ I did it all myself!† If Oedipus didn’t want to fulfill the prophesy, he could have chosen not to kill anyone or to marry someone younger than him. But because he himself chose his line of action which fulfilled the prophesy, he accepted responsibility for his own