BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading...

The very creation of a common military framework has been fraught with disagreements. The UK and France have been willing to follow the USA’s example of military force and shown support for the idea of an EU army. Other nations have clearly rejected this approach on the basis of pacifist arguments and because they are reluctant to commit to the high level of military spending this would imply. While the EU does like to see itself as the diplomat of the world and flaunt its achievements with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it still ponders the possibility of a middle-of-the-road strategy of militarization and securitization. In the meanwhile, it continues to reside comfortably within the US sphere of military protection while acting as an enfant terrible who rebels against and yet continues to accept parental protection. It is a contradiction to argue that the EU is both attempting to build up its military force as well as providing an alternative sense of security that does not rely on military power.
The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territ...

While the process of European integration has indeed proven quite successful in maintaining stability in the region, the EU model is hardly replicable everywhere else in the world, nor can it be extended to include the entire international system. The model has taken large amounts of time and significant financial and political efforts to create and maintain, and is still struggling to deal with new and potential accessions to the EU. There has been little recent progress in the Western Balkans and Turkey’s membership negotiations have stalled so badly that the EU has lost any ability to influence the Turkish government in the direction of domestic reform and external cooperation. Freedom of movement within the EU continues to pose significant problems, particularly with regards to increased Eastern migration towards the West, and discrimination remains quite prevalent despite attempts to create a common European identity. In conclusion, the EU model seems to be more of a consequence of a particular set of historical circumstances in the post-World War 2 era, one will not necessarily remain stable in the future, and one that can hardly be extended to the rest of the world.
The recent agreement on the EU reform treaty and the creation of a post for an ‘EU Foreign Minister’...

The recent agreement on the EU reform treaty and the creation of a post for an ‘EU Foreign Minister’ marks an important change in the decision making process at the EU level with regards to foreign policy. Agreement on the post shows a clear commitment to the pursuit of a common EU foreign policy and to developing a unique cooperative model for foreign policy decision making that goes beyond the nation state. Member states should now deliver on that commitment by seeking as much common ground as possible to ensure that the High Representative’s role is truly significant. The goal of a common foreign and security policy should thus be supported not only as a mechanism to streamline EU’s position and role in world politics, but also to reinforce notions of cooperation and consultation essential for maintaining a stable international system.
While the new ‘EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy’ marks only a bold first step ...

While the new ‘EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy’ marks only a bold first step towards a more unified voice for the EU, the decisions are indeed still based on a state by state consultation mechanism – hence the name representative. This should however not to be downplayed as a less significant change in how the EU approaches its foreign policy. The consultation aspect is in fact essential to reaching agreement and the importance of not only presenting a united front to the rest of the world, but also creating a united front through collaboration and debate. One should thus see this not only as a means to an end, but rather as an important mechanism in itself, whereby new identities are slowly created along with a deeper sense of commitment to a common set of values.
The High Representative will not only act as a spokesman for EU nations when they agree on foreign p...

The High Representative will not only act as a spokesman for EU nations when they agree on foreign policies, but will act as a catalyst around which external policy will increasingly become coordinated. By chairing meetings of EU foreign ministers, he or she will be able to shape the agenda and influence the outcomes of meetings, encouraging member states increasingly to think in terms of common foreign policy positions. They will have added authority from their ability to speak for the EU in the UN Security Council. The High Representative will also direct the EU’s new External Action Service, which brings together policy specialists from both the Council and Commission in a unique manner. With representatives all over the world the EU will develop a foreign service capable of creating and articulating policy positions in a manner that few national governments can match. Over time this will promote the evolution of a true EU foreign and security policy, and will contribute significantly to increased European consciousness among EU citizens and further moves to political unity.
Creating a common EU foreign and security policy will in fact be easier than many people suppose, be...

Creating a common EU foreign and security policy will in fact be easier than many people suppose, because many of the 21st century’s most important issues in external relations are already European competencies. Most are issues on which any one member state, even one as significant as Britain, France or Germany, cannot hope to make a real global impact alone – only by coordinating policy at EU level will the interests of member states be advanced at all. Policies in areas such as climate change, energy policy, development aid, trade negotiations and human rights promotion are already decided at EU level. Having a High Representative to coordinate and promote this work outside the EU makes sense and actually gives all member states a greater international effectiveness – the true measure of sovereignty.
One should not forget that a uniting Europe in itself has been a very bold undertaking that has take...

One should not forget that a uniting Europe in itself has been a very bold undertaking that has taken several centuries to develop, and is certainly far from being a finished product. It would be unfair to argue that the EU has made no progress in its collaboration on foreign policy since the initial establishment of the CFSP, or that the past fifteen years have seen more decay than progress on further political integration. The mixed EU reaction to the war in Iraq has long been a point of contention and criticism, yet it represents only a small and exceptional failure, in a much larger common EU foreign policy. The Accession Process has been by far one of the most successful elements of EU foreign policy, along with many other success stories with aid to third parties and management of international conflicts, for example the EU’s role in Kosovo.
The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading...

The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading the effort to create a common EU military force for humanitarian and peacekeeping operation, with the creation of several new institutional bodies such as the Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee and military staff. The EU has military envoys in Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and has committed itself to the European Security and Defence Policy with 60,000 troops ready to deploy at a month’s notice (see Rockwell Schnabel’s article listed below). While incremental, these are steps not to be ignored. It is also important to note that the EU has also been building its military based on a notion of peacekeeping as opposed to military aggression. The EU does not seek to dominate through military power but rather to provide a sense of wellbeing and security through its very presence.
The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territ...

The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territory have certainly heightened levels of anxiety, its ‘foreign policy’ is still based on an inclusive approach: bring threatening nations under your economic and political umbrella and provide them with incentives to collaborate. People such as Allen David and Michael Smith have argued that EU’s ‘foreign policy’ seeks to go beyond the nation state and thus treats what lies outside its borders not necessarily as ‘foreign’ and ‘threatening’ but rather as a different system (see Helene Sjursen’s paper listed below). The EU provides a subsystem of international relations within a larger global system, in which threats and fears subside as a result of economic and military integration. The most pressing challenge is to learn how to extend this system beyond the current borders of the EU, keeping in mind that the accession process is a mechanism not to be abused.
the majority of people respond to discipline

If we were to increase the amount discipline that we have in schools than the people that don't respect authority will. If you make it clear to somebody that a particular action will result, not only in long-term consequences, but short-term consequences as well, than that person will make an effort to avoid the unwanted consequences. We need to increase discipline because children in schools are unable to comprehend the long-term consequences of their actions such as not getting a job. We need to provide more short term consequences that these children will understand and respond to such as detentions and the like.
It's because of the teachers for me.

I am a teenager, and yes, many may think that we are ALL rowdy, irresponsible and quite immature... But I'm the exact oppisite. And it's not very encouraging to hear that you're a stupid little kid that needs more discipline. I have grown up around adults being completely idiodic. My old principle was undescribibly the WORST, mean-est, stupidest woman I have ever known. My spelling may not be the best, I may totally suck at math and I am deffinitely not the best at science... But I Do have a brain and I Do deserve to be heard. And anyway, do you think parents want their child and/or children coming back home with red, puffy eyes from crying? How about bruises for some stupid reason? I mean really! SUCK IT UP. WE. WILL. LEARN. Ugh... >.<
Respect

Discipline in schools need to be improved because it will teach children respect. Respect is a value that is need by all ages, and is a continuous effort throughout your life. Respect not only constitutes towards your elders, but also anyone around you. Respect is a value that is learned as people grow up. In order for respect to be learned, it needs to be implemented at a young age. By disciplining students for the lack of respect in school, they will learn the value of respect. This is an important aspect because it is a value that is used throughout your whole life. Imagine if you did not learn respect, and you were at work and disrespected your boss. With this lack of respect, you could be fired from your job and be unemployed because the economy is so bad there are not other jobs available. This would lead to a poor sad life.
launching pad(highschool/secondary) so discipline

i believe that schools especially either high schools or secondary schools is like a "launching pad" to adult life. students need to learn to be mature and gain life qualities and values such as respect and being mature, calm and gentle. discipline guarantes respect . not just to people but to people in schools, it even helps u in yr life, to be respectful to ur bosses and even those under you. discipline gives birth to respect and if discipline is placed in schools then the seeds of respect will be rootly sown into children's life at that tender and learning age and it becomes part of them. discipline makes someone to stand in life, knowing that they are respectful, gentle, mature, responsible and disciplined. discipline is what defines someone as a real human being not a wild disrespectful animal
All behaviour from children is derived from adults' behaviour

I agree they develop based on the role models that society provides them. However consider the undisciplined individuals that now form that role model for today's kids. However there are always going to be those that choose to be nasty just because they are bigger than the other kids, or the other kid has something they want etc, etc. This is the same mentality found in industry, governments and yes even religions all around the world. Everyone needs to act better, but how do you achieve this lofty idealism without the discipline required to teach individuals that their behavior is undesirable, and even sometimes harmful to others that have done nothing to deserve it. Everyone seems to default to thinking discipline is about beating sense into them, there is a whole variety of forms of discipline. But take it to the ultimate level ... Why do countries have armies, because there has to be a big stick somewhere that says if you want to go down this path we will be there to smack you, because we don't want to and you have no right to make us.
learn from mistakes

Discipline in schools needs to be improved because it helps children learn from their mistakes. During children’s adolescent ages they are not able to decipher between right and wrong. Children have to go through their own experiences to decide between the two. However, without proper discipline when making the wrong decisions, children will never be able to learn exactly what is right. By importing discipline, children will be able to see the differences between right and wrong because of the discipline from their actions. This will make them learn from their mistakes and associate bad with discipline and good with rewards. With children being disciplined with their wrong decisions, this will help them learn from their mistakes. In the future they will no longer make the same mistakes from the past and continue on a better path. Their previously made mistakes will be with them forever, and will never be made again.
If we

Today's children are tomorrow's adults. I didn't start this one, but in reply to your remark, we do discipline adults and more and more of those adults need to be disciplined as a result of lack of it when they were at school. Here in the UK the number of adolescent crimes of a serious nature, stabbing, even shooting is increasing badly in places. Nobody is insisting we return to draconian measures and beat them to a pulp. But since they pretty much outlawed any kind of discipline from schools the nastier side of human nature is emerging in more strength every year. They go even further and stop the parents from disciplining their own kids, are these kids never to taste punishment for their deeds. We have an intake of fresh apprentices every year, over the last several years they are more and more brash, self opinionated egotistical self centered little shits than you could ever hope to meet. They show absolutely no respect for any kind of authority because they have not been taught these lessons in schools. I agree there is a need to control the discipline and how it is ministered, but currently there is absolutely none in schools. When your child comes home the victim of a gang of bullies and the school come back with the answer, "Yes we know, but our hands are tied, there isn't really anything we can do." Then you know political correctness has gone to far. So I ask you to Seriously think before society degenerates back into the dark ages, and transgresses back to the mobs rules type of attitude. The point that is being missed is there needs to be a balance society will degenerate with no discipline at all.
Classroom environment

Discipline in schools needs not be improved so the classroom environment is conducive to learning. At younger ages, children are more likely to act out in class; or sometimes, there is that student who likes to be the center of attention and act out. When this happens, the focus is on the student opposed to the teacher. This causes disruption within the whole classroom as the teacher has to settle down the student. With discipline implemented into the school system, these occurrences would be minimal. Teacher would not have to focus their time on rowdy students because they would already be disciplined in school. This would make the classroom more focused on learning and would not have any setbacks with out of control students. This would then lead to teachers being able to get through their whole curriculum and the students will be getting their whole learning experience. This will lead the children to a successful learning experience and adequately prepare them for the next level.
UN demanded they withdraw troops

On June 25th, 1950, North Korea invaded the South. The United Nations, meeting later that day, decided on the U.S’s order to North Korea to withdraw to the 38th parallel. The council voted on it, and Russia was boycotting, so they were not able to use their veto. They are one of a few main countries in the U.N that had the absolute veto power, so had they been there, the proposal wouldn’t have gone through. Two days later, the order remained ignored by the North Koreans. This proves that the United States, through involvement in the U.N, had the U.N demand that North Korea back out of their invasion. They had tried a peaceful option. When this peaceful option was ignored, and it was obvious that it had no effect, the United States went to the last resort. The U.S finally requested that the U.N use force to stop the invasion. Since the Russians were boycotting, no country used their veto privilege against this proposal.
North Korean People’s Army invaded South Korea, an ally of America; this prompted response from American; this prompted response from American forces.

After the eve of WW2, and the fall of the expansive Japanese empire, many Japanese territories were confiscated from their former controllers, and made into new nations. Two of these newly independent countries were North and South Korea. The two independent nations had formerly been a single nation prior to Japanese annexation, at which point it remained a single nation, but fell under harsh Japanese rule. However, when the war ended the nation, upon gaining its freedom from Japan, was immediately split between North and South, the former occupied by the Soviet Union, and the latter occupied by the United States. Much like in the case of Germany’s split occupation, what was initially meant to be only temporary, eventually became long term. The Soviets established a Communist regime in North Korea, while the United States supported the fledgling capitalism in the South economically and militarily. For a time this went on in relative, if not tense, peace. Suddenly, on June 25, 1950, this tentative peace was broken as North Korea’s armed forces began to invade the south, and made their way to the nation’s capital. With support from communist powerhouses China and the USSR, North Korea would have quickly extinguished its southern adversaries, had the United States not stepped in. South Korea was and still is a sovereign nation, and did not, and still does not, desire to become communist, when the American Forces interceded in the conflict they were merely defending an ally in need. Had the war been strictly between North and South Korea, United States intercession may not have been necessary, for North Korea only had roughly 233,000 troops during the onset. However, China would eventually contribute two million soldiers to the North Korean cause, and The Soviet Union Union, although they denied involvement, would contribute their technology, their tactics, and even their training for a North Korean, and Chinese air force. This combined threat demanded America assist South Korea, which would be inevitably crushed under the combined force of the assault, without aid. In fact, on the North Korean army’s initial strike South Korean forces were pushed back to the southernmost tip of the peninsula; Korea was almost entirely united once more under a communist regime. Although South Korea desired unity, understandably they desired a united nation in which they had the economy that they chose, not an economic system that was forced upon them. The overwhelming threat of the communist conquest of their close ally, South Korea, motivated American assistance in the form 5,720,000 troops, troops that would protect the South Koreans right to the economy that they desired.
Was a foreign war between foreign powers

The United States was never directly attacked in this war. North and South Korea were the countries at war. However, South Korea was under the command of the United States while North was in the hands of the Soviets. When North Korea was attacked, the United States called for the U.N to create an army mainly comprised of United States soldiers. So without any threat to the well being of our country,(aside from economic) our soldiers died to defend a foreign country. On top of that, our involvement caused even more countries to enter the war. A team of 14 countries came to aid the United States, as decided on by the U.N. Now we have a war between two countries had now caused another country to join, which in turn convinced 14 more countries to share in the fighting. That wasn’t the last of it. Once the U.N stepped in, the Chinese sent troops to Korea and fought against the U.N soldiers. With the whole U.N army comprised of 15 different countries, one may expect there to have been results. However, the war ended up in a tie. The 38th parallel again served as the dividing line between the two countries. For a war with little to no payoff for the U.S, and no direct attack of endangerment of their citizens, they sure involved a large amount of soldiers from countries that had nothing to do with the fighting beforehand. It would have been best for the United States to have minded its own business.