I will pay for the following article Edward Zwicks Blood Diamond and Stanley Kubricks Dr. Strangelove. The work is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page

I will pay for the following article Edward Zwicks Blood Diamond and Stanley Kubricks Dr. Strangelove. The work is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. Blood Diamond is a 2006 story of the Civil War of Sierra Leone, which happened form the year 1991 to 2002. The plot centers on the activities rebels like the Revolutionary United Front, who have forcefully taken control of large sections of the country and are terrorizing locals. They actually enslave many of them and mete out other forms of atrocities such as forced labor in harvesting diamonds, which are the main motivation of the war (DeRouen 117). For example, a local fisherman named Solomon Vandy is abducted and forced to work under a ruthless warlord named Captain Poison. His experience makes the viewer understand the physical and emotional pains locals underwent under the rebels. However, the most critical part of the plot is the role of influential foreigners in the war. It is clear that locals are just pawns in the conflict, but those who control the activities of both the rebels and the Sierra Leone government are powerful white men with business interests. Therefore, the film offers a good critic on the roles of foreign nationals and their governments in fanning civil wars across the world. Similarly, Dr. Strangelove by Stanley Kubrick is a 1964 film that offers a good critic on the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. It tells the story of a US commander, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, is leading one faction of the army and has issued a command for a nuclear attack on The Soviet Union. The superiors, including the President, make frantic efforts to stop the attack, but communication has been jammed and the planes are on their way. The suspense of the viewer is intensified when it emerges that should the strike happen, the entire world risks destruction. The film offers a critic on the way governments have made the world a dangerous place by fanning conflicts, manufacturing nuclear weapons and the continuous threats to use them against their perceived enemies. This portrayal is similar to the argument advanced by Bostrom & Kovic (1) when they state that powerful world governments are to blame for the threats humanity faces currently. Thus, one can clearly classify this film as a good piece of criticism against the role of governments in making the world more dangerous. Both films have a high political leaning, and while they may lay claim to being works of fiction, there are many factual details in the plot. One can actually argue that they were meant to comment on the real events surrounding the conflicts that they highlight, which explains why they feature these conflicts in their plots and use real names to refer to them. The war in Sierra Leone and the cold war are real events that have happened in history, and in the case of the cold war, the countries named in the film, the US and the Soviet Union, are the actual ones who played the greatest role in the war. Also, by picking some of the most well-known conflicts, the writers seek to establish a link between the films and the real world events. The writers of both films want to show that powerful governments and internal conflicts between political players of these countries are responsible for the declining world peace. Tobe (164) argues that modern films are a reflection of real-life events and that some of them are true stories retold with a little emphasis on certain aspects that they wish to highlight or comment on. Thus, the film writers successfully show how governments contribute to the cold war and in the Sierra Leone war, and the drastic effects of these conflicts on human life.