Iraq became a more populist country several years before the emergence of the Islamic Revolution as the doors to trade liberalization were opened in the country. A war against Iran was considered as a suitable option by Saddam Hussein, Iraq's president, to build nationalist sentiments and spirit and lessen the likelihood of a Shi'a uprising or Iran's ability to obtain ideological ground in Iraq (Jacek, 2011)
From the years 1974 to 1990s, a steep increase was seen in the importation of oil (Dorraj and Currier, 2008). In the year 2011, almost 10% of the import of oil was from Iran (China, U
It has also been reported that these sales soared up to $600 million from the years 1997 through 2000. On an average, an approximate has been made that China earned $171 million per annum in trade with Iran since the year 1982 (Delpech, 2006)
The main reason why China turned to Iran for oil and gas was because they wanted to switch their source of energy from coal to other sources. From the years 1974 to 1990s, a steep increase was seen in the importation of oil (Dorraj and Currier, 2008)
Furthermore, in the subsequent month (about the same time when the American officials arrived in China), another deal was struck between Beijing and Tehran and this deal was worth of $3 billion. According to this deal, China would help Iran expand more oil refineries (Downs and Moloney, 2011)
Through this scrutiny, the United States also discovered that China was making use if North Korea to trade arms during the war between Iraq and Iran so that it does not get antagonized by the West, but later on it finished its ties with North Korea. In the years between 1984 and 1986, almost sales of arms that were worth of $1-2 billion took place (Hickley, 1990)
The United States does not have to worry about the sanctions that are exercised on Iran since it does not have any economic ties with the country and also considers the Iranian government as a threat to the global security and stability. They are also worried about the rising of Iran as they see as a threat to the American alliances as well as the energy deals in the Middle East (Mafinezam and Mehrabi, 2008)
In the 1980s, the relationship between these two countries became even stronger when both the governments declared the same ideological themes pertaining to anti-imperialism as well as solidarity of the third world that helped to solidify the ties that existed and the two countries emerged as allies. When the Soviet Union signed a treaty with India, the establishment of a friendly relationship between China and Iran became important to neutralize the increasing Soviet influence in the region (Shuja, 2005)
Apart from oil, China also imports other products from Iran that includes mineral as well as chemical products. Since China realizes the importance of Iran as its oil supplier, it is investing in the exploitation of the oil reserves of the country so that access to the stores of oil and gas could be facilitated (Simpson, 2010)
Moreover, Sinopec Group is another Chinese company that has been granted half-share of the Yardarvaran oil fields. China would be investing 100 billion for exploration of these fields (Walt, 2005)
China is indifferent to the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran by America and other Western governments and is adamant on supporting Iran. Political Relations -- How supporting Iran creates problems in Chinese Diplomacy Leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee flew to Beijing in the year 2009 to have a meeting with the concerned Chinese officials with a request from Beijing that said that it is important for China to turn down their links with Iran if Iran was to be stopped from developing nuclear weapons (Wright, 2004)
occupied Eastern Europe and created, as Winston Churchill called it, "An Iron Curtain." The Cold War was also a war of fear -- fear of use of nuclear weapons, culminating, many say, in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1961(Gordin, 2010; Franklin, 2001; Churchill, 2010)
Martin Garbus, one of the country's leading First Amendment and civil rights trial lawyers, believes that the "new court" can easily overturn many of the decisions made in previous years. According to Garbus, "Even though the Court has said, yes, we respect the right of Miranda, it's been eroded by all kinds of hairsplitting decisions, so that the protection that the defendant once had in the police station is fundamentally gone," (Lalumia, 2004)
Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement no longer needs an individual's consent, nor do they require the individual to have knowledge that the search is taking place. As long as the law enforcement officers can say the effort is being done to protect against terrorism, anyone's financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue and mosque records can be obtained (Lithwick & Turner, 2003)
In their decision, the court noted that finding evidence inadmissible if seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment was one of the most important constitutional rights, and was an essential part of the right to privacy. The Court continued to note that the Exclusionary Rule was the only deterrent to overzealous police actions, and the only protection of individuals against such actions (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961)
This paper will discuss how the Miranda decision has been eroded over time, and the long-term outlook of the decisions application. What did the Miranda decision originally attempt to provide? According to the Court, Miranda was intended to allow for pressure against defendants, but to extinguish the use of coercion (O'Connor, 2004)
This means agents would not require a court order to access credit reports, would not have to show any criminal activity, and would not "note" the report, meaning that no one would know their report had been obtained by the government. The enforcement officials need only show their efforts were "in connection with their duties to enforce federal law" (Ramasastry, 2003)
Senatorial rhetoric is pragmatic. Senators "want to know what will is likely to work in the specific context and what is not" (Beer & Boynton, 1999)
Using the official records of Congressional committee hearings, Boynton examined how members make sense of policies and current events. Boynton charted the crystallization at meaning points when interpretation took shape, and charted how committee members attempted to convey to other committee members the meaning they generated for themselves (Boynton, 1991)
Cruz suggested that elites people in a culture have more latitude than might be surmised, and others have argued that strategic culture can be characterized as a reality that is negotiated among the elites of the foreign policy arena (2005). Cruz suggests that while leaders honor the deepest convictions embedded in their strategic culture, they are still apt to seek a degree of legitimization "for preferred policy courses that may, or may not, conform to traditional cultural boundaries" (Cruz, 2005)