I come to you this evening to discuss the extremely important and rapidly changing circumstances in Southwest Asia. . . .
. . . Massive Soviet military forces have invaded the small, nonaligned, sovereign nation of Afghanistan, which had hitherto not been an occupied satellite of the Soviet Union.
Fifty thousand heavily armed Soviet troops have crossed the border and are now dispersed throughout Afghanistan, attempting to conquer the fiercely independent Muslim people of that country.
The Soviets claim, falsely, that they were invited into Afghanistan to help protect that country from some unnamed outside threat. But the President, who had been the leader of Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, was assassinated – along with several members of his family – after the Soviets gained control of the capital city of Kabul. Only several days later was the new puppet leader even brought into Afghanistan by the Soviets.
This invasion is an extremely serious threat to peace because of the threat of further Soviet expansion into neighboring countries in Southwest Asia and also because such an aggressive military policy is unsettling to other peoples throughout the world.
This is a callous violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. It is a deliberate effort of a powerful atheistic government to subjugate an independent Islamic people.
We must recognize the strategic importance of Afghanistan to stability and peace. A Soviet-occupied Afghanistan threatens both Iran and Pakistan and is a steppingstone to possible control over much of the world’s oil supplies.
The United States wants all nations in the region to be free and to be independent. If the Soviets are encouraged in this invasion by eventual success, and if they maintain their dominance over Afghanistan and then extend their control to adjacent countries, the stable, strategic, and peaceful balance of the entire world will be changed. This would threaten the security of all nations including, of course, the United States, our allies, and our friends.
Therefore, the world simply cannot stand by and permit the Soviet Union to commit this act with impunity. Fifty nations have petitioned the United Nations Security Council to condemn the Soviet Union and to demand the immediate withdrawal of all Soviet troops from Afghanistan.
. . . [N]either the United States nor any other nation which is committed to world peace and stability can continue to do business as usual with the Soviet Union.
I have already recalled the United States Ambassador from Moscow back to Washington. He’s working with me and with my other senior advisers in an immediate and comprehensive evaluation of the whole range of our relations with the Soviet Union.
The successful negotiation of the SALT II treaty1 has been a major goal and a major achievement of this administration, and we Americans, the people of the Soviet Union, and indeed the entire world will benefit from the successful control of strategic nuclear weapons through the implementation of this carefully negotiated treaty.
However, because of the Soviet aggression, I have asked the United States Senate to defer further consideration of the SALT II treaty so that the Congress and I can assess Soviet actions and intentions and devote our primary attention to the legislative and other measures required to respond to this crisis. As circumstances change in the future, we will, of course, keep the ratification of SALT II under active review in consultation with the leaders of the Senate.
The Soviets must understand our deep concern. We will delay opening of any new American or Soviet consular facilities, and most of the cultural and economic exchanges currently under consideration will be deferred. Trade with the Soviet Union will be severely restricted. . . .
Along with other countries, we will provide military equipment, food, and other assistance to help Pakistan defend its independence and its national security against the seriously increased threat it now faces from the north. The United States also stands ready to help other nations in the region in similar ways.
Neither our allies nor our potential adversaries should have the slightest doubt about our willingness, our determination, and our capacity to take the measures I have outlined tonight. I have consulted with leaders of the Congress, and I am confident they will support legislation that may be required to carry out these measures.
History teaches, perhaps, very few clear lessons. But surely one such lesson learned by the world at great cost is that aggression, unopposed, becomes a contagious disease. . . .
The position of the United States toward Latin America in the 1800s can be characterized as protective.
Explanation:
At the beginning of the 19th century, when Latin America was beginning to become independent, the United States decided not to intervene in the politics of the new Latin American countries. Instead it promoted the idea of expelling any European claim from the continent, in a doctrine that was called Monroe Doctrine, whose main phrase was: "Americas for the Americans".
You drink half of one and half of another, knowing that half a glass of poison cannot kill you (only a full glass can according to the problem). Then pour the remainder of one glass into the other, and it will seem like you have a full glass of only one type of liquid. (hope this helps <3)
KKK (Ku Klux Klan) is an organization that fought against (and still try to) the black people in the 60's. They also are against Catholicism, and in general any race that is not white.
Gompers' approach to labor unions differs from that of Debs' in terms of their approach. Gompers think that labor could work with capitalism while Debs took the socialistic approach. Thank you for posting your question. I hope that this answer helped you. Let me know if you need more help.
It created a three-tiered judiciary: the Supreme Court of the United States was to have a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices; next, the United States Circuit Courts were created to act as general jurisdiction trial courts, where one Supreme Court justice and a local judge presided; lastly, each state
