Tony Blair and Winston Churchill: analysis of their speeches.
...It is worthy to note that the political situation that both leaders were in differed greatly and therefore would have an effect upon their speeches. The major factors which need to be taken into consideration are the distinct differences between the wars. Winston Churchill was faced with a world war that was inevitably going to happen, and had begun 8 months prior to him entering into office. The nation had to fight in order to protect their country from invasion; therefore entering the war was not a personal choice that Churchill made. This is an important aspect to take into account when studying his speeches. Unlike Blair, Churchill did not have to persuade the nation that it was a’ just war’ he had to persuade the country to continue fighting and remain positive. Tony Blair was not faced with the threat of a World War, he personally made the decision to join forces with America and attack Iraq. His speeches thus required him to persuade Britain in his decision...
Brezhnev and Khrushchev. Discuss their foreign policy.
...Khrushchev was believed to be one of the calm leaders of the Soviet Union. This is displayed in the number of crises and developments which occurred in the near decade he was in rule of the Soviet Union. These can be loosely pinpointed as the 1955 signing of the Warsaw Pact, the Hungarian predicament of 1956, the Berlin ultimatum in 1958, the Sino-Soviet split and the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. In this era Khrushchev also attempted to develop the soviet standing in the newly liberated third world, however I will focus on relations with the West, the US and China in answering this question.
In order to contemplate the success of Khrushchev’s foreign policy, it is first important to determine his personal views and his ideological outlook which coloured his policies. Khrushchev has been described in many ways, from a ‘colourful, impulsive individualist… the bold iconoclastic reformer… the ambitious adventurer’ to a ‘hare-brained schemer’. However, most accounts agree on the fact that he was passionate about his foreign policy, taking active and visible interest in all such affairs...
Discuss the issue of propaganda and censorship in the Gulf War
...Limited access to the theatre of actions was one of the main issues when revealing the news to the public. The major difficulty for the press in covering the war was actually getting to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia did not have any American reporters in the country when the invasion of Kuwait occurred. The Saudis were not eager to change the situation. The U.S. had to use persuasion to get the press in to cover the military.
Other examples of how Reporters were limited:
• Turkish state television barred scenes of U.S. bombing raids originating in that country.
• Saudi Arabia censored all foreign publications, and banned those with articles dealing with the Palestine Liberation Organization or Iraqi civilian bombing casualties.
• Syria, detained writers and intellectuals for expressing support for Iraq.
• France banned any pro-Iraqi publications and
• In Iraq, CNN reporter Peter Arnett was heavily restricted in what he could write or show. He was not allowed to show or discuss any military damage nor was he permitted to talk freely to ordinary citizens without a government escort.
• Reporters in the Gulf were routinely and openly censored and harassed by military public affairs officers. All pool reports had to be submitted to the Joint Information Bureau in Dhahran, the official censoring location, for security review...
Issue of Terrorism and its Impact of the Human Rights.
...For a number of years, the UK has had to deal with terrorism. In particular, its experience with the Irish Republican Army, which has caused the UK to establish laws specific to this area. It was in 1974 when the British Parliament enacted the first Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. This identifies exactly how long the country has been dealing with such issues. However the public have become more aware of the growing threat of terrorism since the tragic September 11th disaster in America, 2001 and concerns are rising. Terrorism is defined by the European Union as being offences which “include international acts, by their nature and context, which may be seriously damaging to a country or to an international organisation, as defined under national law, where committed with the aim of; Seriously intimidating a population or, unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or to abstain from performing any act or, destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or international organisation”...
Is Military Intervention Ever Justified?
...How can intervention be defined?
Militaries have intervened in the domestic affairs of other countries time and time again, but rarely have they done so in an attempt to end a complex emergency or conflict, until recently.
Intervention, as wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention) says is:
- Interventional (counselling) - an orchestrated attempt by family and friends to get a family member to "get help" for addiction or other similar problem.
- An act by which a third person, to protect his own interest, interposes and becomes a party to a suit pending between other parties. There are financial, political, military interventions.
- A nation's insertion of military or diplomatic pressure upon another nation or elements within it in order to resolve or minimize a human rights crisis.
- A nation's provision of military support to one side of an internal conflict within another nation.
- A military invasion - occasionally used euphemistically
- A particular form of capturing in some board games.
There are many forms of intervention. Until the last decade, military intervention was used to achieve geopolitical goals of states, by protecting its territory, population, and other resources...