THE CONSERVATIVE TURN 1969-1988
1. What was Barry Goldwater’s conservative philosophy? Which Republican President used
this plan and won the White House? Pp.1032-1033 Introduction
2. How did Title IX and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act influence the lives of American
women? p.1039 The Continuing Sexual Revolution
3. Although his presidency was considered a failure, when and where did Jimmy Carter
achieve political success? p.1062 The Election of 1980
4. What is “glasnost and perestroika?” p.1072 Reagan and Gorbachev
CHAPTER 27—FROM TRIUMPH TO TRAGEDY 1989-2004
5. How did immigration change the face of Black America? p.1097 The Changing Face of
Black America
6. How did the computer change American life? Who were the “architects” of the computer
revolution? p.1089 The Computer Revolution
7. What was the cause of the rise of imprisonment in America? p.1099 The Spread of
Imprisonment
CHAPTER 28—A DIVIDED NATION
8. According to the picture on p.1134, who was the first woman to have served on the
United States Supreme Court? Obama in Office
9. What was the focus of the protest “Occupy Wall Street?” p.1139 The Occupy Movement
10. What was the Tea Party’s appeal to its supporters and how did it affect President
Obama’s first term? p.1147 The Republican Resurgence
Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.