@Naveed Bhutto
Sir, I possess great sense of respect and gratitude for your such an altruistic effort on this forum; I've been through your notes in novemeber as provided by prestigious member, Farhan kaif.I read and found them good one as well.
Now come to the question,
I went through the Us history in ce-16.
My approach was bit awkward even to me as well. For example referring to question, Bush foreign policy, I competitively and judiciously justified his ill fated actions by comparing the other presidents.I.e.against McCarthysm and roll back Bush doctrine stepped more offensively towards Nuclear posture review, against Clinton liberal ideas of Geneva human rights emancipation, the respective president was the beholder of Hague invasion act,(explained it thoroughly), similarly Ronald Reagons communist collapse was taken up by Bush admin as War on terror.Similarly, I explained nuclear policy, escalation dominance and counter offensive modules combined with Natos war of aggression as well as Drone policy.
Than in critical analysis I presented the world order of stability as a consequence of Bush doctrine.
Is it okay or how you view my answers in view of examiners dogmatic mentality.