One could argue that since the beginning of the 1980s, the United States has become increasingly influenced by international events and their effects on international diplomacy. The ending of the Cold War, retaining a position as the remaining superpower, and the beginnings of a worldwide war on terror have been important to any study of contemporary US history. When President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003, he took a largely unilateral military action. His stated purpose was to increase US national security. Presidents Clinton and Obama favored more multilateral efforts when intervening in countries such as Kosovo and Libya. Is there a justification for the US to engage in unilateral rather than multilateral military action overseas?

“a committee reviews the bill and marks it up to make it more viable and to reflect interests 

e imma say squidward tentacles

islamic religious leaders have traditionally been people who, as part of the clerisy, mosque, or government, performed a prominent role within their community or nation. however, in the modern contexts of muslims minorities in non-muslim countries as well as secularised muslim states like turkey, indonesia and bangladesh, religious leadership may take a variety of non-formal shapes.

compared to religious leaders/clerics of the other abrahamic faiths, islamic clergy are said to resemble rabbis and not priests. unlike catholic priests they do not "serve as intermediaries between mankind and god",[1] have "process of ordination",[2] or "sacramental functions",[1] but instead serve as "exemplars, teachers, judges, and community leaders," providing religious rules to the pious on "even the most minor and private" matters.[1]

a.opium

hope this