Roosevelt's Definition Of Freedom Analysis

What is freedom? Well, freedom is in general “The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.” We take from this that the state of freedom is that of complete liberty from all manacles and boundaries, be it any form. This however brings us to the “million dollar question”: Has humanity ever tasted true, legitimate autonomy? The answer is a sad no, for the cloth of emancipation has been ever so tainted with the blood and tears of the wars that thwart it. Ironically enough, these wars that stand as barriers on the path to liberty had broken out in order to achieve one sole objective: Freedom! As citizens of the 21st Century, specifically citizens of the “underdeveloped” Middle East, we have surely

With these 4 paragraphs, Roosevelt portrayed firstly freedom of speech, secondly freedom of religion, thirdly freedom from want, and finally freedom from fear. Noteworthy goals indeed, but as we look back at history, we discover how these objectives were actually achieved. In 1942, The United States of America declared its participation/involvement in the Second World War– ironically, a mere year after Roosevelt’s “freedom” speech. Why did the United States discard its once idle status and enter the international battlefield you ask? The answer is simple: In the name of freedom… It was in the name of the “freedom from want” and the “freedom from fear” (1) that The United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki; it was “to secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants” that The United States performed one of, if not the most ruthless crimes against humanity known today. After all, injuries, deaths, destruction, and the mutilation of an entire generation are nothing but bits and pieces that pave the way to peace and

Terrorism, as defined by The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, is "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Moreover, as we dive into the true meaning of this segment, we can relate it to present day anti-terrorism! Take into consideration the key words in this sentence, and link it to history: In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, according to US President George W. Bush and British Prime minister Tony Blair, “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorsim, and to free the Iraqi people.” (2) As noble a statement as it seems, it was a mere cover for a bigger, much more devieous scheme. General Wesely Clark, former supreme NATO Allied Commandder and Joint Chiefs of Staff Director of Strategy and Policy, wrote some quite controversial lines in his 2003 book, Winning Modern Wars. In his book, Clark described a conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon(3) shortly after the 9/11 attacks; in the exchange, the officer mentioned a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in/within five years: “As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year