Suchergebnisse

The United States of America and France are states that have much in common. The USA has the greatest political, economic and military power in the world, and France held this position before the Second World War. Both, the Unites States and France, were the sources of democratic values in the eighteenth century. Currently the two countries have the same values and objectives for the world community: defence of human rights, promotion of democracy, maintenance of international stability and peace, fight against terrorism. However, France has always opposed the United States on one issue or other. It may be in the realm of international diplomacy, where one can discern a distinct distaste for America's oftproclaimed sole-superpower status, or on matters of culture, where France is always the first to denounce American "cultural imperialism." Lately, Franco – American friction has manifested itself most visibly in the UN Security Council over the Iraq war. Both countries realized the necessity to disarm Iraq yet France opposed the resolution authorizing the war against Iraq. France's antipathy to war, pessimism to crate stability in Iraq and refusal to recognize the leadership of the United States can be conceived as the reasons of the opposition. France is no longer the superpower that it was, and that leads to a strategic difference in how the two countries pursue their goals. [.].

The United States of America and France are states that have much in common. The USA has the greatest political, economic and military power in the world, and France held this position before the Second World War. Both, the Unites States and France, were the sources of democratic values in the eighteenth century. Currently the two countries have the same values and objectives for the world community: defence of human rights, promotion of democracy, maintenance of international stability and peace, fight against terrorism. However, France has always opposed the United States on one issue or other. It may be in the realm of international diplomacy, where one can discern a distinct distaste for America's oftproclaimed sole-superpower status, or on matters of culture, where France is always the first to denounce American "cultural imperialism." Lately, Franco – American friction has manifested itself most visibly in the UN Security Council over the Iraq war. Both countries realized the necessity to disarm Iraq yet France opposed the resolution authorizing the war against Iraq. France's antipathy to war, pessimism to crate stability in Iraq and refusal to recognize the leadership of the United States can be conceived as the reasons of the opposition. France is no longer the superpower that it was, and that leads to a strategic difference in how the two countries pursue their goals. [.].

The United States of America and France are states that have much in common. The USA has the greatest political, economic and military power in the world, and France held this position before the Second World War. Both, the Unites States and France, were the sources of democratic values in the eighteenth century. Currently the two countries have the same values and objectives for the world community: defence of human rights, promotion of democracy, maintenance of international stability and peace, fight against terrorism. However, France has always opposed the United States on one issue or other. It may be in the realm of international diplomacy, where one can discern a distinct distaste for America's oftproclaimed sole-superpower status, or on matters of culture, where France is always the first to denounce American "cultural imperialism." Lately, Franco – American friction has manifested itself most visibly in the UN Security Council over the Iraq war. Both countries realized the necessity to disarm Iraq yet France opposed the resolution authorizing the war against Iraq. France's antipathy to war, pessimism to crate stability in Iraq and refusal to recognize the leadership of the United States can be conceived as the reasons of the opposition. France is no longer the superpower that it was, and that leads to a strategic difference in how the two countries pursue their goals. [.].

This article aims at describing the development of Lithuanian military units and their participation in wars in 1812-1814. To do so, the method of summarising and synthesis of the latest data and materials provided by historians was applied, also using historiographical sources that have been rarely used up to the present day.

This article aims at describing the development of Lithuanian military units and their participation in wars in 1812-1814. To do so, the method of summarising and synthesis of the latest data and materials provided by historians was applied, also using historiographical sources that have been rarely used up to the present day.

This article aims at describing the development of Lithuanian military units and their participation in wars in 1812-1814. To do so, the method of summarising and synthesis of the latest data and materials provided by historians was applied, also using historiographical sources that have been rarely used up to the present day.

The aim of this survey was to evaluate intentions of Lithuanian physicians and medical residents to work in the European Union (EU) and other countries. The survey was performed in 2002 in the framework of the project "Health human resource development and planning in Lithuania", sponsored by Open Society Fund, Lithuania. Using the questionnaire developed by the Ministry of Labor and Solidarity of France, 242 medical residents and 497 physicians were surveyed. Survey results indicated that 60.7% of medical residents and 26.0% of physicians intended to leave for the EU or other countries. The survey also showed that the first-choice countries were United Kingdom, Germany and the Nordic countries. Almost 15.0% of medical residents and 5.0% of physicians planed to leave for the EU on permanent basis. The largest part of those who intended to leave for the EU, planned to go there after accession. It was a definitive decision of 2.5% of medical residents and 3.8% of physicians. The major reasons for leaving were higher salary, better professional possibilities and better quality of life. For medical residents a previous visit abroad for professional reasons increased the risk of working abroad significantly (OR–3.29, 95% CI 1.73–6.27). In the case of physicians, age was the factor that significantly decreased the risk (OR–0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.96); however having friends abroad increased the risk by more than three times (OR–3.22, 95% CI 1.91–5.42). In order to observe the possible migration to the EU or other countries, the survey should be repeated every three-four years.

The aim of this survey was to evaluate intentions of Lithuanian physicians and medical residents to work in the European Union (EU) and other countries. The survey was performed in 2002 in the framework of the project "Health human resource development and planning in Lithuania", sponsored by Open Society Fund, Lithuania. Using the questionnaire developed by the Ministry of Labor and Solidarity of France, 242 medical residents and 497 physicians were surveyed. Survey results indicated that 60.7% of medical residents and 26.0% of physicians intended to leave for the EU or other countries. The survey also showed that the first-choice countries were United Kingdom, Germany and the Nordic countries. Almost 15.0% of medical residents and 5.0% of physicians planed to leave for the EU on permanent basis. The largest part of those who intended to leave for the EU, planned to go there after accession. It was a definitive decision of 2.5% of medical residents and 3.8% of physicians. The major reasons for leaving were higher salary, better professional possibilities and better quality of life. For medical residents a previous visit abroad for professional reasons increased the risk of working abroad significantly (OR–3.29, 95% CI 1.73–6.27). In the case of physicians, age was the factor that significantly decreased the risk (OR–0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.96); however having friends abroad increased the risk by more than three times (OR–3.22, 95% CI 1.91–5.42). In order to observe the possible migration to the EU or other countries, the survey should be repeated every three-four years.