What evidence shows that the US involvement in the Vietnam War conflict was justified?
The writings of Jean Bodin provides us with an early theorisation of the idea of sovereignty even though the examples he uses are quite extensive. Essential to Bodin's notion of sovereignty is that the power the sovereign holds must be absolute and permanent. If a ruler holds absolute power for the duration of his life he can be said to be sovereign. In contrast, an elected official or some other person that holds limited powers can not be described to be sovereign. Although at times Bodin suggests that the people are sovereign, his definition of sovereignty as absolute, unlimited and enduring power points purposively towards a positive association of sovereignty and a singular monarchical, or even tyrannical, power.
Another qualification that Bodin introduces into the definition of sovereignty as absolute and perpetual is one that will become increasingly important in subsequent theorisations, culminating in the work of Carl Schmitt. For Bodin, a sovereign prince is one who is exempt from obedience to the laws of his predecessors and more importantly, those issued by himself. Sovereignty rests in being above, beyond or excepted from the law. Although it occupies a subordinate place in Bodin's theorisation, it could be said that this exception from being subject to the law is the quintessential condition of sovereignty in so far as it is understood politically.
Although for Bodin sovereignty is characterised by absolute and perpetual power he goes on to make a series of important qualifications to this concept. These come from two principle concerns. The first is real politics - Bodin seems to be aware that absolute power could licence behaviour injurious to sovereign authority. Hence for example a sovereign cannot and should not confiscate property nor break contractual agreements made with other sovereigns, estates nor private persons. The second reason is Bodin's underlying theological notion of divine authority and natural law. A sovereign may put aside civil law, but he must not question natural law (in which it appears right of property is sanctioned). Saying this, it is ultimately from this divine authority that the earthly right of sovereign power is legitimated. The prince literary does god's bidding, and yet by virtue of this can do wrong. Hopefully this helps out some :)
Answer:
There wasn't a victory.the Europeans exhausted themselves. The US only prolonged the conflict for about a year, at which time the Europeans thought that an armistice was the only way to not perish. The real victory came in 1919, when President Wilson went to Versailles to hold court and chop up the map of the world in the image of a racist, imperialist, white, Western European/American hegemony, complete with “reparations” that assured the flow of gold primarily out of Germany, and primarily into the US. Wilson was able to hold the dominant position at Versailles because the US was one nation that was not utterly spent, in terms of men and material and resources.
Explanation:
Answer:
china is the worst country to be neighbor with.
Explanation:
they are treating muslims as if they are the enemy of this mankind..how bad is this..should they be treating someone like so bad just because they come from a certain religion, with no harm! they want to expand borders..and what not..if you think China is the best country..than you are totally wrong..China is that one friend who will backstab everyone for their own benefit..if described in that manner.
