Explore the vast range of titles available.

United States adopted the nineteenth century British model of colonialism for the twentieth century, specially in the exercise of controlling people's perspectives within the country while undertaking the adventure of directly interfering in other countries’ affairs. When President Bush addressed three countries around the world as Axis of Evil on January 29, 2002, he was following the same route. Nevertheless, coining the phrase was not enough, and making people believe it required the main task that became possible through creating an intellectual atmosphere in which the focus was to promote the picture of good and evil embedded in the addressing of Axis of Evil. Consequently, any voice out of tune was hushed instantly, even if it meant Sam Shepard who had previously won great fame on the American stage by his family plays. Shepard never stopped on the notion of revealing the multiplicity of self, interacting with different geopolitical situations. As such, it is no wonder that his God of Hell is pursuing the same aim, a play totally neglected by the critics and reviewers for being too political and incoherent. Nevertheless, the research at hand is to demonstrate that Shepard is a true intellectual or, in Rorty's term, a liberal Ironist, able to entangle himself from the tissues of the aforementioned cultural war by considering people's susceptibility to humiliation.

The United States, Richard Hofstadter once remarked, is a country that has the misfortune not to have an ideology but to be one. In this article, an amendment to Hofstadter's claim is made, suggesting that tied in with the United States's sense of self, is not only what people usually see as some version of US ‘exceptionalism’ – the United States as the ‘shining city on the hill’ or, more recently, the ‘indispensable nation’ – but also a constant and continuing Manichaeism in both the understanding and the practice of its foreign policy. There is a permanent temptation for the United States to ‘moralise’ its relations with others, often rationalising its own actions by demonising its opponents. This article argues that any understanding of US foreign policy must embed an understanding of a long-standing imperative to transform global and regional politics through opposition to ‘evil’. The Manichean ‘temptation’ is alive and well in contemporary US foreign policy, invoking ‘evil’ to justify US actions abroad sometimes leading to the infliction of unnecessary and often avoidable suffering.

In this powerfully argued book, Ian Shapiro shows that the idea of containment offers the best hope for protecting Americans and their democracy into the future. His bold vision for American security in the post-September 11 world is reminiscent of George Kennan's historic \"Long Telegram,\" in which the containment strategy that won the Cold War was first developed. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and unilateral action has been marked by incompetence--missed opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden, failures of postwar planning for Iraq, and lack of an exit strategy. But Shapiro contends that the problems run deeper. He explains how the Bush Doctrine departs from the best traditions of American national-security policy and accepted international norms, and renders Americans and democratic values less safe. He debunks the belief that containment is obsolete. Terror networks might be elusive, but the enabling states that make them dangerous can be contained. Shapiro defends containment against charges of appeasement, arguing that force against a direct threat will be needed. He outlines new approaches to intelligence, finance, allies, diplomacy, and international institutions. He explains why containment is the best alternative to a misguided agenda that naively assumes democratic regime change is possible from the barrel of an American gun. President Bush has defined the War on Terror as the decisive ideological struggle of our time. Shapiro shows what a self-defeating mistake that is. He sets out a viable alternative that offers real security to Americans, reclaims America's international stature, and promotes democracy around the world.

U.S. policy toward the inter-Korean relations of a divided Korea draws upon a complex historical legacy of the 19th and 20th centuries which influences current and future policy options. American cooperation with the ROK and adversarial relations with the DPRK symbolize the essence of the U.S. role between the two Koreas, but they also provide the framework for post-Cold War U.S. approaches to inter-Korean relations. North Korea's post-Cold War strategic brinkmanship and nuclear agenda have escalated tensions, but also caused Americans during the Clinton and Bush administrations to consider more creative alternatives for dealing with inter-Korean dynamics. U.S. policy options toward inter-Korean affairs also are being shaped by post-9/11 U.S. global security issues and the geopolitical debate they created for the politics of the 2008 presidential election campaigns, setting the stage for the forthcoming Obama administration's potential policies toward Korean relations on bilateral, multilateral, and unification issues. It would be very useful for the Obama administration to support developing a \"U.S. Center\" focusing on inter-Korean peace and unification. Adapted from the source document.

[Ahmed Ahmed], Jobrani and [Aron Kader] have performed together steadily since 2000 when the Comedy Store's Mitzi Shore teamed them for a series of shows called \"The Arabian Nights.\" The shows grew into a successful road tour and eventually incorporated other Arab comics such as the New York-based [Dean Obeidallah], co-founder of the Arab-American Comedy Festival in New York.

Factors responsible for changes to contemporary US foreign policy toward \"outsider\" states like Iraq, North Korea, & Syria are studied. An overview of the central features of outsider states is provided (eg, the absence of non-democratic political systems & the preservation of relationships with rogue groups); in addition, explanations for the location of most outsider states within the Middle East & North Africa are supplied. Circumstances that accelerated the US's emergence as the only global superpower during the late 20th century & the outsider states' sundry responses to growing US unilateralism are then explored. The effects of President George W. Bush's identification of certain outsider states as belonging to an \"axis of evil\" on present-day American attitudes toward these foreign nations are also contemplated. It is concluded that outsider states' rejection of US unilateralism, not their supposed possession of particular weapons or relations with terrorist groups, is principally responsible for modifications to US foreign policy toward the Middle East & North Africa. The potential consequences of these changes for domestic & international security are pondered. J. W. Parker