Internet History

Sample Solution

Internet History Sir! No Sir! is a 2005 documentary by Displaced Films about the anti-war movement within the ranks of the united states Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. The film tells for the first time the story of the 1960s GI movement against the war in Vietnam. The film explores the profound impact that the movement had on the war, and investigates the way in which the GI movement has been erased from public memory. As the Johnson administration turns what was initially a small “police action” into an all-out war and the peace movements begins, isolated individuals and small groups in the military refuse to participate and are severely punished: Lt. Henry Howe is sentenced to two years hard labor for attending an antiwar demonstration; the Fort Hood Three are sentenced to three years hard labor for refusing duty in Vietnam (Lewes, James 2003); and Dr. Howard Levy, a military doctor, refuses to train Special Forces troops and is court-martialed.

(Hanson, 2010 p. 204). This has seen countries deviating from policies of free trade and moving back to controlled trade with little free trade that is allowed to the level of regions where countries have similar economic capacities and so there would be no likelihood of exploiting each other or feeling of unfairness for example in European union. Countries argue that free trade deny them access to sources of revenue from foreign investors that could otherwise be used in their development projects. The argument is laid on the fact that ‘free trade allows trade between countries without imposing tariffs and taxes’ (Wacziarg, & Welch, 2008 p. 197). Hence, the trade is exploitive to the developing countries. Most governments and particularly those from developing countries steer their economic development projects and caters for wages from revenues that they get from tariffs, taxes and licensing of businesses that operates within its territories and so, free trade deny them from accessing these funds. Hence, their development projects may end up taking time and making a country poorer as most of its resources are utilized at no benefits.

Conclusion

From the discussion, it can be concluded that free trade has been a reality to developing countries since it contributed greatly to development of current developed countries such as china, South Korea, and other European countries such as Germany and Britain. For example, China is one of the developed countries that have achieved its developments through taking advantage of free trade to attract investors to its country and it investing in small countries such as those in Latin America thus boosting its developments. Although free trade has been attributed by negative impacts on small developing countries, positive impact surpasses the negative one and thus contributing to most of developments in the small countries. Therefore, based on my opinion, I think that free trade has positively impacted to developing countries as it has stimulated their economic development goals such as millennium development goals. Hence free trade has been a realistic aspect to developing countries.