The profits dropped due to poor demand of oil, and thus the production could not sustain Iraq.

Kuwait was a strategic location to conquer as it links to the Persian Gulf with more ports. This increases trade and may solve their economic crisis.

Japan was an early victim of imperialism. However, they decided not to turn it around and emulate it. Thus, they carved out a substantial empire following their victory in the Russo-Japanese War. Part of their rationale was control resources like coal and oil that were necessary for their industrial economy. But it was also a way to strengthen their strategic position in the region. By having a large military and colonies, they increased their political power. Therefore, a big reason they went into Manchuria was to strengthen their strategic position in the region, and their military leaders strongly advocated this position.

Consequences can be dealt from within the person. The argument of Action = Reaction cannot be applied to every case, especially in this one. The way how audiences react to what the media presents to them is key to the influence it has. One can choose to believe everything a public figure says as one follows them, but shutting off all other perspectives and information is known as confirmation bias. Thus, for an 'influential' person to affect the lives of others is really dependent on how the 'followers' react.

In Britain, more than anywhere, there seems to be this obsession with the sexual escapades of famous people, or of any people for that matter. It is my feeling that any kind of sexual activity carried out by someone in the public eye, is not the business of the public. This includes adultery which is always reported in the media. Not only is it unnecessary for the public to know every morbid detail of someone’s sex life, but it could also be detrimental to that person’s family, who have to deal with it in the public eye. This is where the line needs to be drawn between public interest and what the public find interesting.

As celebrities are not in a position of responsibility, the justification for media invasion does not apply to them abusing a position of power. It is harder to find a case where invasion is justified. The problem is that the media have to cater to what the public is interested in (rather than public interest). Politicians are only in the news in a non-political way if there is something potentially scandalous to say about them whereas celebrities are continuously in the news. If they are seen out shopping they are often photographed or it is just noted in some magazine that X was spotted shopping. There don’t seem to be any genuine grounds where invasion of privacy is actually in the public interest.

Often, many say that any kind of dictatorship is bad. Many say that dictatorship always favoured the dictator himself, which is very true. What Stalin did was not only favouring him, but also the country. His policies helped his country, under him, grow, modernize and sustain.

In my opinion, if you live in a certain country, you owe that country a living. In other words, you have to work for your country, fight for them and sometimes even sacrifice yourself. It is not about Stalin brutally forced the farmers to work; it's about the mindset of the people to pay back to their country.

In every leadership, there must be a certain amount of dictatorship. Under Stalin's rule, he had dictatorship over Russia and implemented many policies in hope of improving the USSR. In some of the policies, it may have cost many lives and the treatment/conditions were brutal. However, have we ever considered what if Stalin did not implement these policies? Russia would have never advance, and their economic state would be devastating. Collectivisation and Industrialisation were one of the most important policies in my opinion. Technology was introduced to farmers, military was funded and no more famines occurred. In every good, there has to be a bad. How can there be success when there isn't failures? Of course, the cost of human lives may be considered immoral to some, but there would have been much more deaths in the long run if not for Stalin's dictatorship.