Why did the united states get in the war in korea

In 1950 the Korea Peninsula was divided between a Soviet-backed government in the north and an American-backed government in the south. The division of Korea into two halves had come at the end of World War II. In August of 1945 the Soviet Union invaded Korea, which had been under Japan's control since 1910

Explanation:

social contract theory basically says that all individuals are born equal, and provided a god given right to consent to be governed. american government is based of this

thomas hobbes and john locke said that we are selfish, individualistic, and constantly at war with each other, therefore we need to be controlled. 

government is defined as the legitimate use of force to control human behavior within territorial boundaries, here comes in hobbes and locke.

hobbes takes the part about controlling human behavior. while locke takes the part of legitimate use of force, since force is not legitimate unless there is consent of the people. 

there are basically 3 goals of the government: 1) maintain order by protecting life and property. 2) providing public goods, those which are typically not provided by the public sector, such as roads and education. 3) promote equality be it political, opportunist or outcome equality. 

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is