The Cambodia Vietnamese War History Essay

The Cambodia Vietnamese War History Essay The Cambodia-Vietnamese War was a series of conflicts involving various nations such as Cambodia, Vietnam, Hanoi, China and the United States of America. It was a conflict that flourished from border disputes between Cambodia and Vietnam. Minute aspects that contributed to this controversy stretched as far back as the 14th Century, when the Khmer Empire declined and when Khmers and Vietnamese dealt with an uneasy integration in an atmosphere of suppressed mistrust. The formlessness of the conflicts has made it difficult to identify the time frame unerringly but has been gauged that it occurred between 1975 and 1989. However, the wars foremost conflict was the Cambodian Incursion by the Vietnamese in 1978. It is debatable to affirm if this controversy can be justified accordingly. By examining the manifold of causes and effects of the conflict with close study to the Just War Theory to substantiate my view, I will elaborate on why I think that a form of equilibrium has been establishe d of the war in terms of being unjust or otherwise. Vietnam possessed no precise or pertinent reason to invade Cambodia. Emory Swank, the U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia came to a conclusion that The war is losing more and more of its point and has less and less meaning for any of the parties concerned. (Schanberg and Pran 11). This is relative to the border disputes because of the U.S. involvement in providing military assistance for General Marshal Lon Nol, who overthrew Sihanouk in 1970, in Cambodia during the war. However, the Just War theory criteria, Jus ad bellum, states that a party must possess the right intention to go to war, and in turn will be granted the right to go to war (Just War Theory,  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Cambodia and Vietnams feeble relationship fortified in 1965 when Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia, despite mistrusting the Vietnamese, allowed North Vietnamese Communists to establish sanctuaries inside the borders of Cambodia (Schanberg and Pran 11). After North and South Vietnam signed an agreement in Paris on January 27th 1973, Cambodian communists were left to stand alone. This being the basis of the international relationship provoked many controversies, but never provided Vietnam with a commensurable rationale to invade Cambodia. The invasion into Cambodia by the Vietnamese was a disproportionate response to the 2-year long border dispute between the two countries. According to Jus ad bellum, the goal attained should be in proportion to the offence (Just War Theory,  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). However, over two million lives were at the expense of settling disputes between two countries. It is impossible for Vietnams eventual goal to measure up and find equilibrium with the execution of over two million inhabitants. The invasion failed to ameliorate, furthermore prevent more evil than it caused. According to statistics, a larger amount of people were directly affected by the invasion and massacre rather than the series of border conflicts. Thus, the invasion failed to prevent more human suffering than it caused. According to the theory, the means used to fight must be in proportion to the wrong to be righted. (Just War Theory,  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) However, the lives of a massive number of people were at the expense of the Vietnamese invasion, therefore, with humanity at stake, the goal cannot be compared to the evil committed in this incursion. Thirdly, the Cambodian incursion was not a last resort for the Vietnamese. According to the Just War Theory criteria, Jus ad bellum, a war is justified when only after all viable alternatives have been exhausted (Just War Theory,  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). In this case, the Vietnamese offered a diplomatic solution to the conflict, such as the establishment of a demilitarized zone along the border of the two countries, but was eventually rejected by Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge in that period. A single attempt was made by the Vietnamese, indicating the possibility that more could have been done to prevent the provocation of the war. Therefore, because other possibilities and alternatives were never explored or exhausted, the invasion into Cambodia was not a last resort for the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese made no distinction between combatants and non-combatants of the war, thus resulting in an indiscriminate attack of Cambodia. It has been proven that a massacre of about one million Cambodians took place in the Cambodian incursion. According to the Just War theory, Jus in bello, non-combatants and civilians should be spared so as to avoid terrorism of the people. Combatants would include members of military forces, guerilla forces or anyone who takes up arms but not for self-defense. Non-combatants would include civilians or neutral countries, children, the old and the sick (Just War Theory,  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The war sparked off when the Vietnam Peoples Army (VPA) launched a massive invasion into Cambodia in 1978. They began a massacre of over a million people, and failing to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants of the war. According to the Just War Theory, the failure to do so would indicate the lack of justification of a war du e to the unleveled playing field of the two parties, which would result in uneven an potholed consequences. The VPA possessed excessive military force when invading Cambodia, without the limitation of unnecessary death and destruction of Cambodia and its civilians. In this bloody guerilla war, the amount of Vietnamese troops was almost 8 times the amount of Cambodian troops. According to the Just War Theory, Jus in bello, the principle of minimum force in a war needs to be appropriately applied, as well as attacking needs to stem from the intention of helping in military defeat (Just War Theory,  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The Vietnamese forces fell short of this as it resulted in the deaths of over a million civilians, the destruction of border villages and the abandonment of vast tracts of agricultural land. According to Jus post bello, goals of the war cannot be reached with excessive force, which the Vietnamese were in opposition of. The stringent lack of limitation of military forces showcases the Vietnameses incorrect conduct within the war. After the invasion, both countries suffered political, social and economical deteriorations. Slaughters, assaults, bombings and mass violence demonstrations affected the Vietnamese and Cambodians in terms of living standards, conditions and circumstances. A vast amount of property was destroyed which resulted in the overflow of refugee camps and the inhabitation of refugees in Phnom Penh specifically. Due to the large number of people, diseases in the area were rife. Also, food was scarce and malnutrition was a common situation. Medical attention was unable to be provided as hospitals were overworked and under-equipped with few drugs available, thus resulting in the collapse of the medical system. Political relations within different countries were also heavily impinged on. When the Khmer Rouge lost all political and military power, they suffered disintegrations through defections of the political and military system. The dimensions of Vietnamese colonization of Cambodia were also measured (Morris 224). For example, PRK was renamed State of Cambodia (SOC) in 1989 by the Vietnamese. However, the Vietnamese communists managed to achieve their goal of overthrowing the Khmer Rouge regime. Vietnam also suffered from Chinese military pressure for over 10 years as well as receives international diplomatic isolation (Morris 222). Vietnams alienation of international support was a result of their actions of invasion precluding any prospects of imminent normalization with the U.S., as well as turned most of the Western and Third World nations against any cooperation with them (Morris 222). This also meant war of Vietnam with China. The Vietnamese invasion on Cambodia meant much economic alterations for both countries. The Vietnamese suffered from economic alienation and isolation which retarded the economic growth of the country. Cambodias traditional economy was also all but vanished. As a result, inflation was extremely rampant in both countries. According to the aftermath of the Cambodian incursion, neither of the countries seemed to have gained incentives and inducements from the war itself. In turn, both countries suffered major political, social and economical damage, causing a massive downturn in the establishment of the two countries. However, probability for success for the Vietnamese was evident. There has been evidence of certain aspects of the incursion being justifiable. The Just War Theory criteria, Jus as bellum, states that a country has the right to go to war when there is a probability for success (Just War Theory,  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). It considers the ethics of causing suffering, pain and death to inhabitants of a country with no chance of success. In this case, the Vietnamese saw that their probability for success from the incursion would be higher than that of the Cambodians. As long as chance for success existed for either party in this war, the Vietnamese can then be granted the right to go to war in the first place. Similarly, the Vietnamese had barely any supplementary alternatives to put an end to the various 2-year long disputes. After Pol Pot rejected Vietnams diplomatic solution for the border conflict, a mutual understanding between the countries failed to exist. This made it tough for the Vietnamese to decipher a modus operandi to put a quick stop to the disputes. However, the invasion was merely not a last resort but more of an immediate solution for the Vietnamese. With harsh limitations and an inability to resist more animosity, the Vietnamese succumbed to war. In this context and within these circumstances, it is still possible for the conflict to be a just one. Apart from accentuating the traditional animosities between Vietnam and Cambodia, furthermore, the was also managed to overthrow the Khmer Rouge from power as well as end the Khmer Rouge Regime Genocide. With close relation to the Just War Theory, Jus ad bellum, Jus in bello, and Jus post bellum, I managed to differentiate the aspects into which exploit is just and what is otherwise. Moreover, though many factors proved the Vietnamese invasion to be unjust, the possibility of the incursion being a just war still subsists.

Beh 225 Appendix D

Associate Level Material Appendix D TV Character Evaluation Part I Write a summary of 350-700 words identifying the contributions of Freud, Jung, and Rogers. Sigmund Freud, is often described as the most famous figure in psychology. He's written books on Hysteria; commonly being referred to as the â€Å"father of psychoanalysis†. His most popular works being highly influential on others that study psychology. unconscious, – Psychosexual development (stages), Neurosis, transference and trauma are theories that Freud has developed over the years.One of Freud's theories was, that the personality is three structures. Another theory of Freud's was that our personality is rooted in the dynamics of the unconscious. He determined that the aggressive and sexual instincts were primarily unconscious drives which could determine our human behavior. Carl Jung is a psychologist that mostly studied the human psyche, dream analysis, and the collective unconscious. Cowgil (1997) refers, He proposed and developed the concepts of the extroverted and introverted personality, archetypes, and the collective unconscious.The issues that he dealt with arose from his personal experiences. For many years Jung felt as if he had two separate personalities. One introverted and other extroverted. This interplay resulted in his study of integration and wholeness. His work has been influential not only in psychology, but in religion and literature as well. She also believed that the unconscious mind had two separate components; the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. Hall (1997) refers, Carl R.Rogers is known as the father of client-centered therapy. Throughout his career he dedicated himself to humanistic psychology and is well known for his theory of personality development. He began developing his humanistic concept while working with abused children. Rogers attempted to change the world of psychotherapy when he boldly claimed that psychoanalytic, experimental , and behavioral therapists were preventing their clients from ever reaching self-realization and self-growth due to their authoritive analysis.He argued that therapists should allow patients to discover the solution for themselves. Rogers received wide acclaim for his theory and was awarded various high honors . Through Rogers extensive efforts in expressing his theory of personality through the publishing of books and lectures he gained a lot of attention and followers as well as those who strongly disagree with his theory of personality development. Reference Cowgil, Charles. Carl Jung, 1997. Part II Choose three of your favorite television characters; past or present.Complete the following matrix describing the characters’ personalities from the point of view of the three theorists, Jung, Freud, and Rogers. |TV Character |Jung |Rogers |Freud | |1. | | | | |2. | | | | |3. | | | |

Social mechanism, class or money in Washington square

The novel consists of four main characters; Dr. Sloper, a rich doctor and brilliant professional who was married to an heiress who died of complications of child birth. He has Catherine has his only living child, another major character who has fallen in love with Morris Townsend, yet another major character. Morris has wasted his inheritance for traveling and is putting up with her sister Mrs. Montgomery. Mrs. Montgomery is poor, a window with five children. Sloper pays her a visit to discuss her brother Morris, and she is persuaded by him to admit that Morris takes money from her, returns very little and makes her suffer.Morris is handsome and tall and attracted to Catherine, but Lavinia Penniman, another major character, lazy and a soap operas fun, tries to manipulate and lead their relationship into romantic melodrama. Sloper refuses to allow the relationship between her daughter and Morris to survive. He even withdraws her to New York for twelve months. Catherine does not accept to end her love with Morris and her father announces that she would withdraw financial support if they marry. He rejects Morris on the basics of him being after Catherine’s money and poor background.After return from the exile, Catherine convinces Morris that her father would not accept, and Morris withdraws. Catherine is devastated by this and as a result she is unwilling to be married afterwards. The damage is too much that she finally rejects the proposal by Morris, who resurfaces after the death of her father Sloper, who has left reduced amount of money for fear that Morris would return. Issues of social class, relationships and finances are brought out in this book. Sloper means to stop the relationship between her daughter and Morris, but only that love was stronger that it does not end.He feels that Morris is after her daughter’s finances and considers her poor background. Athough she can’t avoid sympathy for her own daughter, one can deduce that he feel s it unfair for her to have been married by a poor man. This can be perceived as to be what is happening between the rich and the poor. One can almost see the judgment in the sentences mentioned that social class and the financial stature marry. Catherine is torn between pleasing her father, and her fiancà ©. She finally chooses her fiancà ©.One can feel that because of money, Sloper causes Mrs. Montgomery, who is poor; to admit what is false thus the ‘rich misleading the poor’ concept comes into play. One can add that the rich and the poor may interact on the basis of money acting as an exchange to various favors. Although the rich are largely not willing to let such interactions as marriage to occur between their high social class and the poor low social class, they can make efforts to relate with the poor using their social wellbeing and money-such an unfair play.Fears of certain interaction by the rich, who worry for their daughters like in this case, sometimes ma ke them to suffer. They find themselves torn between the world of the rich and that of poor people. Social disparities are largely influenced by the way of life of people, and this may be determined by how rich or poor a person could be. Sometimes, the poor who must live find themselves having no options than to choose what is available for their survival or benefits.

The Second Central Theme Religion And Exile - 1286 Words

Lastly, both movies demonstrate the second central theme religion and exile as means to control the public. For example, Second Reza Shah wanted to remove religion and place his traditional Persian heritage as founding rule of Iranian people. Removal of religion was mandatory for Second Reza to keep his absolute power within Iran. For example, when Second Reza Shah’s father was in power, he had religious clergy that guided him on action what were needed to be done within the state. When Reza Shah was exiled and his son Mohammad Reza Shah was appointed as the new ruler of Iran by CIA. For this reason, Ayatollah Khomeini used this as his arc to get more people together. Where he expressed that due to foreign intervention the nation is†¦show more content†¦Ayatollah Khomeini was exiled for his oppositions for the reforms and laws that Shah made. Wherefore, the Shah imprisoned and then exiled Khomeini to Iraq then for the last few months of his exile was spent in France. While, in his exile Khomeini followers recorded his speeches and played it in Iran. Appointed Prime Minister (Shahpur Bakhtiar) of the Shah. Bakhtiar used military force to control the public when Khomeini demonstrated his speech in public. At this time, the military lost control of the public and lost legitimacy. Prime Minister Bakhtiar was unable to control the desire of the people, because these people wanted change. Shah at this time in 1979 had already left the country and Bakhtiar also left after losing control of public by military action. For this example, this demonstrated the legitimacy of Khoemini influence in the nation, where he openly spoke against the government. In relation, to Persepolis, Marjane can be viewed as a person for became exiled from her country. For example, as a young girl she spoke her mind and questioned the political rule within her country. As she got older she did the same. However, the new government was just like the Shah where it imprisoned ind ividuals who spoke their minds. For this reason, for keeping Marjane safe, her parents sent her to Paris. In relation, she faced clash of culture within the France, where she did not blend in with the people. She faced constant struggle where she had no income. Importantly she