Policy of Containment Essay Example for Free

Policy of Containment Essay Americans believe that if Franklin D. Roosevelt would have lived longer, that he would have been able to stem the tide of tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States. His successor lacked greatly the Talent of FDR. The new president, who was more comfortable with machine politicians than with polished New Dealers, liked to talk tough and act defiantly. Truman complained that the U.S. Negotiations had been a one way street just ten days after he took office. He then vowed to not baby the Soviet no longer. A crisis in the Mediterranean prompted President Truman to show his colors. On February 21, 1947, amid a civil war in Greece, Great Britain informed the U.S. State Department that it could no longer afford to prop up the anti-Communist government there and announced its intention to withdraw all aid. Truman concluded, Greece, Turkey, and perhaps the entire oil-rich Middle East would fall under Soviet control, without U.S. Intervention. On March 12, 1947, the President made his argument before Congress in bold terms: At the present moment in world history, nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished be free institutionsand freedom from political oppression. The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed on the majority And the suppression of personal freedoms. Never mentioning the Soviet Union by name, he appealed for all-out resistance to a certain ideology wherever it appeared in the world. The preservation of peace and the freedom of all Americans depended, the president insisted, on containing communism. Congress approved a $400 million appropriation in aid for Greece and Turkey, which helped the monarchy and right-wing military crush the rebel movement. Trumans victory buoyed his popularity for the upcoming 1948 election. It also helped to generate popular support for a campaign against communism, both at home and abroad. The significance of what became known as the Truman Doctrine far outlasted  the events in the Mediterranean: the United States had declared its right to intervene to save other nations from communism. As early as February 1946, foreign-policy adviser George F. Kennan had sent an 8,000-word long telegram to the State Department insisting that Soviet fanaticism made cooperation impossible. The USSR intended to extend its realm not by military means alone, he explained, but by subversion within free nations. The Truman Doctrine described the differences between the United States and the Soviet Union as absolute and irreconcilable, as an ideological breach that resonated far beyond foreign policy. It was now the responsibility of the United States, Truman insisted to safeguard the Free World by diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military means. He had, in sum, fused anti communism and internationalism into an aggressive foreign policy. The Truman Doctrine complemented the European Recovery Program, commonly known as the Marshall Plan. On June 5, 1947 the plan was introduced in a commencement speech at Harvard University by secretary of state and former army chief of staff George C. Marshall. The plan sought to reduce hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos and to restore the confidence of the European people in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as a whole. Although Marshall added that our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, the plan that bore his name additionally aimed to turn back both socialist and Communist electoral bids for power in northern and western Europe while promoting democracy through an economic renewal. The most successful postwar U.S. Diplomatic venture, the Marshall Plan supplemented the Bretton Woods agreements by further improving the climate for a viable capitalist economy, in western Europe and in effect bringing recipients of aid into a bilateral agreement with the United States. Western Europe nations, seventeen in all, ratified the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which reduced commercial barriers among member nations and opened all to U.S. Trade and investment. The plan was costly to Americans, in its initial year taking 12 percent of the federal budget, but effective. Industrial production in the European nations covered by the plan rose by  200 percent between 1947 and 1952. Although deflationary programs cut wages and increased unemployment, profits soared and the standard of living improved. Supplemented by a multimedia propaganda campaign, the Marshall Plan introduced many Europeans to American consumer goods and lifestyles. The Marshall Plan drove a deeper wedge between the United States and the Soviet Union. Stalin was invited to participate but he denounced the plan for what it was, an American scheme to rebuild Germany and to incorporate it into and anti-Soviet bloc that encompassed all western Europe. The president readily acknowledged that the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine were two halves of the same walnut. The policy of containment depended on the ability of the United States to back up its commitments through military means, and Truman invested his faith in the U.S. Monopoly of atomic weapons. The U.S began to build atomic stockpiles and to conduct tests on the Bikini Islands in the Pacific. By 1950, as a scientific adviser observed, the U.S. Has a stockpile capable of somewhat more than reproducing World War II in a single day. The U.S. Military analysts estimated it would take the Soviet Union three to ten years to produce an atomic bomb. In August 1949, the Soviet Union proved them wrong by testing its own atomic bomb. There is only one thing worse than one nation having the atomic bomb, Noble prize-winning scientist Harold C. Urey said, thats two nations having it. The United States and Soviet Union were now firmly locked into the Cold War. The nuclear arms race imperiled their futures, diverted their economies, and fostered fears of impending doom. Prospects for global peace had dissipated, and despite the Allied victory in World War II, the world had again divided into hostile camps.

Lee Harvey Oswald: Killer or Scapegoat? :: history

Lee Harvey Oswald: Killer or Scapegoat? On November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas, "the Crime of the Century" took place. President John F. Kennedy was shot in Dealey Plaza while touring through the city in his open-roof limousine. After the shots were fired, police began looking for suspects. One hour after the shooting, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for murdering a police officer. One hour after that he was charged with killing the President. Was Lee Harvey Oswald the real killer, or was he merely the scapegoat hired by some agency outside of the United States, to take the blame. There are a lot of known and unknown facts about this case. Many people believe that there were more people than Lee Harvey Oswald firing the shots even though the Warren Commission will deny any possibility that there was more than one assassin. The purpose of this paper is to state the facts about this case and let you decide for yourself whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was quilty. Early in the morning, on November 22, 1963, Julia Ann Mercer was driving past the Texas School Book Depository on her way to work. Just past the Depository, about half-way from the railway overpass, she saw a green truck parked illegally on the side of the road. Because it was blocking traffic, she had to stop and wait for the other lane to clear before she could go. She noticed that there were two men in the truck. The back of the truck said "Air-conditioning. The passenger of the truck got out and pulled out of the toolbox, located on the back of the truck, what appeared to be a gun case. The many pulled the gun case out and started walking towards the grassy knoll just up the hill. As she drove on, she noticed three policemen standing a little ways down the road talking apparently not seeing the man with the gun case. Miss Mercer wrote out a full report on what she saw and gave it to the Warren Commission, however, none of it was spoken of or even mentioned in the Warren Commission's Report. There is the possibility that the gun case was empty, but the policemen should have taken more precaution considering that they know the President would be visiting the city that day. That same day, a Mr. Lee Bowers Jr., a railroad tower man for the Union Terminal Company, was on duty and had the best view of the area directly behind the fence on the grassy knoll. Lee Harvey Oswald: Killer or Scapegoat? :: history Lee Harvey Oswald: Killer or Scapegoat? On November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas, "the Crime of the Century" took place. President John F. Kennedy was shot in Dealey Plaza while touring through the city in his open-roof limousine. After the shots were fired, police began looking for suspects. One hour after the shooting, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for murdering a police officer. One hour after that he was charged with killing the President. Was Lee Harvey Oswald the real killer, or was he merely the scapegoat hired by some agency outside of the United States, to take the blame. There are a lot of known and unknown facts about this case. Many people believe that there were more people than Lee Harvey Oswald firing the shots even though the Warren Commission will deny any possibility that there was more than one assassin. The purpose of this paper is to state the facts about this case and let you decide for yourself whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was quilty. Early in the morning, on November 22, 1963, Julia Ann Mercer was driving past the Texas School Book Depository on her way to work. Just past the Depository, about half-way from the railway overpass, she saw a green truck parked illegally on the side of the road. Because it was blocking traffic, she had to stop and wait for the other lane to clear before she could go. She noticed that there were two men in the truck. The back of the truck said "Air-conditioning. The passenger of the truck got out and pulled out of the toolbox, located on the back of the truck, what appeared to be a gun case. The many pulled the gun case out and started walking towards the grassy knoll just up the hill. As she drove on, she noticed three policemen standing a little ways down the road talking apparently not seeing the man with the gun case. Miss Mercer wrote out a full report on what she saw and gave it to the Warren Commission, however, none of it was spoken of or even mentioned in the Warren Commission's Report. There is the possibility that the gun case was empty, but the policemen should have taken more precaution considering that they know the President would be visiting the city that day. That same day, a Mr. Lee Bowers Jr., a railroad tower man for the Union Terminal Company, was on duty and had the best view of the area directly behind the fence on the grassy knoll.

Child Observation Report

Such studies are inducted by scientists or researchers wanting to study the behavior of an organism (including humans) in a natural setting. It can be useful in collecting data that clearly reflects the constraints of an organism's normal environment and in the case where experimental techniques would be impractical or unethical. This report outlines the data collected during the sessions with each child. Will refer to Piglet's Cognitive Development Theory to demonstrate how it is useful in determining different stages of development. I will also outline my observations of both children in terms of where they fit in regards to Piglet'sCognitive Development Theory. Setting My observations were of two siblings; a four year old girl and a five year old boy. I made arrangements to do the observation through a friend of mine, who has two children under the age of six. I have known this family for three years. The first observation was of the four year old girl (M), which took place on Aug ust 19, 2014 starting at 2:23 pm outside in the backyard of their home. Present was her older brother (T – 5 years old), her mother (J), a female friend of the family (C), a medium sized German shepherd, who is the family dog (K) and myself.The backyard was quite large with a large play center with a swing set attached. The sky was a little clouded over, but it was still warm outside. The adults were sitting on the deck around the patio table. The children were told was there to do some work. They did not really pay too much attention to me. I interacted a little with the adults at the table so that I did not seem out of place to the children. My presence did not seem to affect the children at all. Sat with my chair facing the whole backyard so that I could see the children at all times.The second observation was of the five ear old boy I made arrangements with the mother to do the second observation with this child later the same week. The observation took place on August 22 , 2014 at 1:08 pm outside in the backyard of their home. This family is preparing to move in one week; therefore the backyard Was the best place to do the observation at the home. Present was his younger sister (M- 4 years old), his mother 0), a medium sized German shepherd, who is the family dog (K) and myself. The backyard was quite large with a large play center with a swing set attached.The sky was a little clouded over, but it was till warm outside. The mother and I were sitting on the deck around the patio table. The children were told I was there again to do some work. They again did not really pay too much attention to me. I interacted a little with their mother at the table so that did not seem out of place to the children. My presence did not seem to affect the children at all. Sat with my chair facing the whole backyard so that could see the children at all times. Results l. Self-concept: M pointed out that she did her hair all by herself when C arrived and M also showed C her new purse.M also shows the ability to scribe how she is feeling about her brother s actions, â€Å"l don ‘t like it when T hits me with his sword† or when she tells T, â€Å"I want to be alone right now†. . Gross Motor Skills: M demonstrated gross motor skills indicative off normal 4 year old. During the time of observation she displayed running around the backyard both with her brother and with the family dog, walking over to the play center, climbing over the chair on the deck, somersaults in the grass and jumping off the chair and off the family friend's lap. Ill. Fine Motor Skills: M demonstrated normal fine motor skills.She cut open her fruit knack package with scissors without difficulty. She put on her own shoes (fastened believer) on the correct feet before going outside to play. IV. Vocal & Language Development: M demonstrated the ability to form sentences more than 4 to 6 words. For example; â€Å"l told you I want to be alone†. She showed the ability to ask ‘Why ‘ questions. She shows an understanding of prepositions when her mother told her that her purse was behind her. She does, however have some grammatical difficulties and people other than her family do have difficulty deciphering what she is saying at times.According to ere mother she has been seen by a Speech & Language Pathologist and will be working with them on her speech. V. Social & Emotional Development: M showed a lot of interest in playing with her brother; however was also fine playing with the family dog as well. She appeared to really enjoy the imaginative play with her brother while playing the sword fight; however did upset easily if the game was not going her way and did change the rules quite a bit to her brother's dismay. She was quite distracted by the family dog and tended to her a lot.She displayed some difficulty with moral reasoning on he swing set when she was calling her brother a â€Å"party pants† repeatedly until h e got upset. When her brother kept getting in trouble instead of her she did not seem to be aware of his feelings when he was upset, instead she kept antagonizing him. VI. Cognitive Development: M understands the concept of grouping and matching as displayed when she was helping her mother with the puzzle and when taking items out of her purse. She also showed the ability to count from 1 to 10 when she was taking the items out of her purse.She showed the ability to identify secondary colors when showing the family friend her new â€Å"pink† purse. She was able to answer simple questions. She was also able to identify common objects and what they are used for; for example the family dogs ball, scissors, hat. Results (Child T) l. Gross Motor Skills: T demonstrated gross motor skills indicative of a normal 5 year old. During the time of observation he displayed running around the backyard, skipping, jumping, walking on just his hands, doing handstands, and hanging on the bars up side down on the play centre.II. Fine Motor Skills: T demonstrated normal fine motor skills. He put on his own shoes (fastened by velour) on the correct feet before going outside to play. He was able to use scissors to open his sour patch kids, which was his snack that afternoon. Ill. Vocal & Language Development: T demonstrated the ability to form sentences more than 4 to 6 words. For example; â€Å"I'm goanna throw it really high†, â€Å"There is a wasp in your ear, Can I have friends over later†? He demonstrated the ability to ask â€Å"why† questions. He does not have any speech or grammatical difficulties.He appears to have met all of his developmental milestones for his age. VII. Social & Emotional Development: It is quite apparent that T really enjoys imaginative play and is able to accomplish this either with others or by himself. He did not partake in any imaginative play with his sister this time; however did do some imaginative play on his own pretend ing to be a gymnast who was displaying his talents for a crowd, as he bowed for people when he completed a stunt on the bars or completed a handstand. He also engaged in imaginative play with the family dog pretending she was his dragon.He also is able to talk quietly to himself while playing on his own, but does not seem to be talking to a third person or imaginary friend. VIII. Cognitive Development: T understands the concept of grouping and matching as displayed when he was putting all the same lord sour patch kids together and separating them. He also noted which ones had less in each group than the others. He let those for last. He demonstrated the ability to count from 1 to 10 and demonstrated the ability to identify primary colors. He was able to answer simple questions.He was also able to identify common objects and what they are used for; for example the family dogs ball and scissors. Discussion: Integration of behavior with theory According to Piglet's Cognitive Developmen t Theory (Beer, 201 0, p. 31 8), both children are in the operational stage (2-7), and they behave normally. They are classified as operational children, because the definition of the operational stage is as follows; ages between 2-7, preschool children use symbols to represent their early sentiments discoveries.The development of language and make-believe play takes place; however, thinking lacks the logic of the two remaining stages. T is a very active child. He has been in pre kindergarten over the last year and has been very socialized between school, extra-curricular activities, playground and playmates with friends. He is on a soccer team as well and enjoys this very much his mother says. T was quite active on the play centre this afternoon, especially on the hanging bars showing off his ability to hang upside down. He also displayed his ability to swing on the swings while standing on the swing instead of sitting on it.He is quite a daring child. He was engaging in make-belie ve play acting as though he was doing these stunts for an audience as after each stunt he would get up and bow to the imaginary audience. M was happily swinging on the swing set, petting her dog, doing somersaults in the grass and drawing in the mud with a stick. She has the ability to keep herself busy and is happy to do so. She also enjoyed make-believe play with her brother playing a sword fight. Make-believe play increases in sophistication during the pre-school years (Beer, 2010, p. 318).M used her stick as her â€Å"sword† during the sword fight and as her â€Å"magic wand† later on during the observation. This demonstrates her ability to coordinate her make-believe roles and pretend with less realistic toys (Beer, 2010, p. 318). M and T were both using the play center together happily. M fell off her swing and T went up and hit M for no reason and walked over to K, the family dog. T hugs K quite roughly and says â€Å"You're my mummy bear† and walks away. I have noted on both occasions during these observations that T displays a bit of aggression.According to Freud, play can have a cathartic effect, as children try to rid themselves of traumatic events or negative feelings through play. T asks his mother, â€Å"Mom, do you have to work today? His mother says â€Å"No, not today'. T asks â€Å"Why†? His mother answers, â€Å"Because have the day foot spend time with you and your sister†. T says, â€Å"Okay, I like that†. His language and understanding of language is well formed and has good sentence structure for his stage in development. His has no beech or grammatical issues. He asks â€Å"why† questions and understands the meaning to the answers to simple questions and answers.M told her brother â€Å"l want to be alone†. Her brother did not leave her alone. M turned to him and said, â€Å"l told you, want to be alone†! This demonstrates M's ability to verbalize her feelings and has a so lid awareness of what she is feeling and thinking and is able to share it with others readily. During the sword fight, M said â€Å"you be the sword, I will be the gun†. T did not like this role change and disagreed. M said, â€Å"No! I am the gun, you are the sword†. She continued to e a gun, which seemed to anger T and he started hitting M with his sword. M screamed and T got in trouble with his mother.M was able to assign roles; however was not able to negotiate well, which is usually indicated during the operational stage. On the play center, M was swinging on the swing and T was on the bar hanging upside down beside her. M calls T a â€Å"poppy pants†. T gets off the bar and hits her swing with his sword. M screams. T goes back to the bar. M calls T a â€Å"party pants†. T hits M's swing with the sword again. M screams again and calls out to her mom. Mom ignores this. M continues to all T a â€Å"party pants† repeatedly. T starts hitting M's s wing again, as M is screaming.This goes on for five minutes (timed). Mom finally tells T to stop and tells him that if he hits her swing one more time, his sword will be taken away. M proceeds to call T a â€Å"party pants† again. T hesitates to do anything and looks over at mom who is ignoring the situation. M continues to taunt T. Finally, T hits M's swing and M screams. It's sword is taken away. T asks mom why M is not in trouble for calling him a â€Å"party pants†. Mom does not respond and walks away. M calls T a â€Å"party pants† one last time and leaves the swing. She runs overt mom and gives her a hug and kiss and says â€Å"I love you mommy'.The mother used presentation of punishment to decrease It's undesirable behavior. The warning and punishment had a positive and negative response. The positive response was that the behavior was stopped. The negative response was that only one undesirable behavior was punished and stopped. When parents treat their children differently by directly varying amounts Of discipline to the two children, sibling relations are likely to be more conflicting and less friendly if children view these differences as unfair, which I believe T did by his reaction.I found this to be concerning, considering It's amount of aggression he displays in his make-believe play. M also showed a lack of moral reasoning and did not show that she was not aware of It's feelings. M takes her small Barbie's out her purse and other figurines and groups all the Barbie's together and all the figurines together, which displays the ability to draw appropriate inferences about these objects and shows normal categorization, as with the puzzle she was doing with her mother at the table.M and her brother pretend to hit the family dog with their swords and at times actually hit the dog. They also pretend to cut the dog up with their swords. These behaviors demonstrate animistic thinking believing that their inanimate object (sword) h as lifelike qualities and intentions. According to Pigged, because young children egocentrically assign human purposes to physical events, magical thinking is common during the preschool years, (Beer, 2010, p. 321). Conclusion I enjoyed observing these children very much.I have watched them grow and change over the last three years. I find M very animated and interesting to observe and find T very in touch with his emotions and struggles with them at times. He is very athletic and determined. The reason I chose the children's home environment is because I felt their own surroundings would be a good way to see what their normal daily routines would be and to see how they interact with family members. I found the backyard a bit limiting and would not choose this setting again.Even though I did not find it was a great setting, did manage to collect some good data. As a mother and grandmother, I did find it hard sometimes during these observations not to jump in and say something to the mother when she was ignoring certain behaviors or when her children clearly just needed some attention. So it was hard at times not to interact with the children. However, I knew I had to control that urge as my role was to observe nothing more. I have learned how to observe and evaluate a child in the operational stage.I have learned what milestones to look for and where a child between the ages of 2 to 7 should be developmentally. It gave me a better understanding to physically do the exercise rather than just reading a textbook I see the value in observing two different children, as not all children are alike in development and behavior. Ideally, a different setting for each hill would have been preferred; however this family is moving in a week and their home is full of moving boxes, so I settled for the backyard with both children.

Florida Word Search, Crossword Puzzle and More