The Controversy of Stem Cell Research

Mickael J. Fox, along with the political party of Democrats are standing up for the controversial topic of stem cell research through ads and foundations for different diseases in which the process of stem cell research could possibly cure. The controversy over the ad of stem cell research has pushed the issue of stem cell research into the spotlight greatly. Michael J. Fox plans on traveling to Iowa for a campaign to support Iowa gubernatorial candidate Chet Culveron the topic. "Stem cell is a big issue in this campaign, I want to lift the very restrictive ban we have here in Iowa. I want to give hope to countless thousands of Iowans suffering from diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. Michael J. Fox has been a national leader, and I'm happy to have him at Drake on Monday." (Chet Culver) Chet Culver's opponent in the campaign is Jim Nussle who takes the side as opposing all forms of embryonic stem cell research.
Stem cell research is not a topic of debate that has derived recently, it is has been a controversial topic for quite some time. Just the mention of its research is very controversial. The most common factor in which is looked upon within the topic of stem cell research is the ethics of its research. The positive potentialof stem cell research is accompanied by ethical dilemmas, which have been the driving force behind the U.S. policy debate.
While one side of the debate focuses upon the "good" of stem cell research, the other focuses upon the "bad". In my opinion, if stem cell research will make a breakthrough within the search for cures within diabetes and Parkinson's, and other diseases, I think it is a very valid research. Although, I understand the validity in the fact of the opposite side of the debate which is stating that extracting stem cells is ethically wrong because they are embryos or human lives.
In conclusion to the topic of stem cell research, not even politics can truly settle the debate. It is a topic which is still "up in the air" and I believe it is going to take some time before the debate is resolved and an answer to the question of whether it is right or wrong is reached. For now, I beleive it is courageous for those who stand up for the research in stem cells and defend what they believe and fight to find a cure for the diseases in which they suffer.

Comparing Containment VS. Preemption

The two foreign policies of Containment and Preemption are very different from each other, meaning there is not really a middle ground where the two can be similar. The Doctrine of Containment is focused upon the idea of “containing” an area or in the case of foreign policy, another country. The Doctrine of Containment was based upon the idea in which war would not be fought with the communist Soviet Union, and instead, the idea to cut off communism and the Soviet Union to their preexisting boundaries was established.
The Doctrine of Containment was also utilized within Iraq when the U.S. warned Saddam to put an end to the corrupt ways in which he was ruling or else we would invade. Not invade in terms of staring a war, but invade in terms in “containing” the area and making sure things would not continue the way in which they were at the time. Containment is a policy in which war is not taken as an action in order to stop another country in their actions, but rather a tactic in which is used to keep a certain area controlled and to cut off the power sources of the enemy.
The foreign policy of Preemption can be described and viewed as the complete opposite of Containment. The Doctrine of Preemption was the theory in which a country will be invaded before they have the chance to attack the invading country. A pre-emptive attack is a military tactic designed to prevent, or reduce the impact of an anticipated attack from an enemy.
It was within the Bush Doctrine, and under the United States that the Doctrine of Preemption was used in a war.
In comparing and contrasting the foreign policies of Containment and Preemption, it is evident that Containment was used in cases of containing, for example: communism in a communist- based country. Preemption was used with the idea being- attack before being attacked. In examining the two different policies, I think it is valid to say that the U.S. foreign policy can in fact be a combination of both Containment and Preemption.
I think the U.S. policy should be a combination of both Containment and Preemption because it is evident that, we as the United Sates have already used both of them in dealing with two different situations and two different countries. The U.S first used the Doctrine of Containment when dealing with the issue of communism within the Soviet Union. Then the U.S. used the Doctrine of Containment when dealing with Saddam in Iraq and their issue of communism.
The area in which the U.S. first used the Doctrine of Preemption was when the U.S. first came to the assumption that Iraq was creating and holding weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The United States’ conclusion in that Iraq did in fact have WMD’s gave the impression that the weapons could be used for an attack on the U.S. With this information, the U.S. invaded and attacked Iraq before having the chance to be attacked by them first.
If the U.S. has a foreign policy made up of both Containment and Preemption it will be a strong policy and show the strength of our country. A foreign policy made up of both Containment and Preemption would show our country’s strength because we have already used both of these doctrines within previous wars and in already using them, we show that we know how to effectively use them.
If the United States’ foreign policy was strictly made up of Containment then there would be room for complaints from the U.S. citizens saying that there is no reason for troops to be in another country if they are strictly containing the area; this argument has in fact already happened. If the United States’ foreign policy was strictly made up of Preemption then there would be complaints that nothing has happened to our country, why invade if nothing has happened? This argument has also occurred. The fact is that if the U.S. foreign policy was made up of both the Doctrines of Containment and Preemption there would be no room for complaints, for the U.S. could choose whatever doctrine they saw fit to handle the situation of opposing countries.

The Doctrine Of Preemption

The Doctrine of Preemption was the theory in which a country will be invaded before they have in fact attacked the invading country. A pre-emptive attack is a military tactic designed to prevent, or reduce the impact of, an anticipated attack from an enemy.
It was within the Bush Doctrine, and under the United States that the Doctrine of Preemption was used in a war.
How and why has the United States been involved with the Doctrine of Preemption and the case of using preemption as a tactic within a war? It was within the year of 2002/2003 that the President of the United States, George W. Bush asked for an end to all alleged weapons of mass destruction that Iraq may have obtained within the time. Within the case for asking the production of weapons of mass destruction to come to an end, it was only practical that the UN inspectors have all access to areas that were thought of being weapons production facilities.
It was when weapons were found and the fact that not all the weapons that Iraq was thought to have were not found that the U.S. was even more driven to invade Iraq and take away its weapons that it did in fact have, and bring peace to the area that was much needed after the cruelty Saddam had inflicted upon his people. "We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take." - President George W. Bush

In reaching the conclusions within the case of Saddam, and Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. decided to take action and before Iraq would have the chance to use their weapons on the U.S., they invaded Iraq. It was also after the fact that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 had, on November 8, 2002,

"a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". It was with this fact that the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003.

In analyzing the strength and weaknesses of the policy of preemption I think it is a very wise way in which to invade and keep our country safe, but I also think it may be a doctrine in which jumps to conclusions before anything even happens. The fact that the Doctrine of Preemption is based upon the idea of attacking before being attacked, I think is very useful because it keeps the country safe in the fact that we have no idea when the opposing country is going to strike. Then again, the Doctrine of Containment could also bring a sense of uneasiness because it may seem as though we are attacking the opposing country for no apparent reason. My opinion on the Doctrine of containment is that, just as in the U.S. and Iraq on weapons of mass destruction, I think if there is enough evidence to attack in relation to the safety of our country then it is a valid tactic in relation to the safety of our country.

The Doctrine Of Containment

The Doctrine of Containment was established under the United States as a foreign policy doctrine. This policy doctrine was called containment. It was under the American President, Harry Truman, George Kennan, Dean Acheson, and other American diplomats and policy advisors that this foreign policy doctrine was established.
The Doctrine of Containment was based upon the idea in which war would not be fought with the communist Soviet Union, and instead, the idea to cut off communism and the Soviet Union to their preexisting boundaries was established. It was during this time, and for reasons of this particular doctrine, that led to the Vietnam war. The history of containment introduces the facts that it was used to basically cut off any one country and or kingdom from its power sources and leave it with little supplies and power from surrounding allies. Kennan introduced this idea and proposed it to be used against the Soviet Union dating back to the 1940’s.
Kennan and other’s arguments within the U.S. government was that the goal of the United States should be to stop, and prevent the spread of communism to non-communist nations. How did America put this doctrine into action? America first used this doctrine with issues regarding communism and later used containment in dealing with Iraq which led to the Gulf War.
In terms of the Doctrine of Containment being utilized by the U.S. against the Soviet Union was that it became the U.S. national security policy and in this it made it possible for the U.S. to move in and contain the communism of the Soviet Union. With the Doctrine of Containment influencing the national security of America, the NSC 20/4 was approved by President Truman in November of 1948.
The Doctrine of Containment and the National Security showed evidence that the Soviet Union was motivated by its ideology to expand its influence of communism throughout the world. The doctrine also made clear the intentions of the United States and how very different the two were. This doctrine has been recognized as the first comprehensive post-war declaration of US national security policy. What sort of actions did the United States take as an implication to stop the spreading of communism and how did they put the Doctrine of Containment into play? It supplied the sectors by air for almost a year until the Soviet Union called off the blockade.
In dealing with the Gulf War and using the doctrine of Containment as a way of action, the United States went into Iraq to contain the communism and the immoral ruling of Sadaam. The United Sates had previously warned Sadaam to stop his wrong doings within communism, and in this stated, if he did not they would eventually invade and “contain” the area.
The basics to the Doctrine of Containment was that a country or a leading power will be confronted by another country in which while actions are taking place, a country will invade and contain the area of the other country, keeping and holding them from receiving power from allies that would help them. In analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the Doctrine of Containment I have come to the conclusion that the weaknesses of this doctrine are that in a way it puts the United States in a position of open attack.
This particular doctrine does this because some many think there is no reason for us to be in the business of other countries. The strength in this situation is that if we, as the United States, were not to invade and contain the situation in other countries then there would be room for many immoral movements spreading around the world. In invading other countries, we show our power in that we will not let the rulings of other countries take over what we have already established within ours.