There are generally two types of feedback (Ashby, 2009). These are negative feedback and positive feedback. These two terminologies can be used in two different contexts. In the first context, the languages refer to the gap between the real parameter and the reference parameter. This is based upon whether such a gap widens. in this case, it is referred to as positive, or if the gap narrows, it is referred to as unfavourable. Whereas, in the second context, the effect or action is altering the gap basing on involvement in the non-reward (negative) and reward positively. According to Arkalgud (2005), positive feedback leads to an increase in the gain of an amplifier, while negative feedback causes a reduction in the amplifier’s gain.&nbsp.

However, these two contexts appear confusing. For instance, in the first case, different authors use various terms substituting negative/complimentary with self-correcting/self-reinforcing, balancing/reinforcing, degenerative/regenerative, and discrepancy-reducing/discrepancy-enhancing, among others (Arkalgud, 2005). Different authors describe the effect or action as a negative or positive reinforcement instead of feedback in the second case. However, this confusion comes about because feedback could be used for either motivational or informational reasons and contains both the quantitative and the qualitative components. Qualitative feedback explains how bad, right, or indifferent, whereas quantitative explains how many or otherwise. The negative and positive feedback reduces and increases the amplifier’s gain.

In negative feedback, the current or voltage feedback is applied to reduce the input amplifier. This is also called the inverse or degenerative feedback. In positive feedback, the current or voltage feedback is used to increase the voltage input. This is also referred to as direct or regenerative feedback (Stuart, 2007). On the other hand, negative feedback can be divided into voltage feedback and current feedback. In other cases, both feedbacks may exist in a circuit. In this case, both current voltages would be feedback towards the input in parallel or series. These cases would be represented as series-voltage feedback, series-current feedback, shunt current feedback, and shunt- voltage feedback (Arkalgud, 2005).

This is due to the reason that, they termed the strategic actions by the USA as uncalled for. As such, there have been actions to seek a solution that would help to normalize such actions by the USA – that is, an independent body that would be in the position to either approve or disapprove the actions that the military takes. When compared to the UK newspapers, most of them did not give a sequence of the events as outlined in The Washington Post (2003). The closest elaboration was given by The Independent UK (2013) when the mentioned that the year 2013 was the 10th anniversary of the war in Iraq. In addition to that, instead of giving a description about the events that occurred in the 10-year crisis, they spoke more about Tony Blair, his decisions to take Britain to the war in Iraq, his opinions of the war and so on. Based on that, it can be concluded that The Washington Post (2003) was more elaborative with regard to the timeline of the war (the timeline of the war was significant to the US citizens) as compared to the UK newspaper which was more of a debate seeking to answer the question “Why Britain was involved in the war”. With regard to what The Independent UK (2013) discussed, it can be stated that the war in Iraq was not much of their concern. As such, it was close to not being significant to the British citizens.

As described by The Guardian UK (2004), the legality in the ideology that the USA conducted a legal invasion into Iraq is still a debate that has never had a sound solution. Nations such as UK and USA have long since been debating as to whether the war that sparked after the US took the step to invade Iraq will ever come to an end. As noted by the previous UN Secretary-General – Kofi Annan, the war in Iraq was very much illegal. In his statement, he mentioned that “from our point of view and the UN Charter point&nbsp.of view, it [the war] was illegal. In addition to that, Kofi Annan added that the USA would have taken the step to inform the Security Council about their decision rather than making a unilateral decision and acting on it without any discussion with the bodies responsible (The Guardian, 2004).&nbsp.

According to the majority of the philosophers, the general notion of belief is that there is compatibility between utilitarianism and moral rights. For instance, the famous British philosopher John Stuart Mill, whose contribution is immense in the field of philosophy, perceives a congruency between utilitarianism and moral rights. The constitutional right to freedom of speech enables an individual to protect his freedom of expression (Wellman 2005, p.145). Philosopher Mill loyally supported utilitarianism, and at the same time, defended freedom of speech until or unless it torments the sentiments of others. However, some philosophers believe that there is an incongruous relation between utilitarianism and moral rights (Brandt 1984, p.1).

To understand the interaction between utilitarianism and moral rights, it is necessary to define utilitarianism at first. According to John Stuart Mill, “the utilitarian approach is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing, desirable as an end. all other things being desirable as means to that end.” In support of this, he has also mentioned: “If so, happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it is the test by which to judge of all human conduct, from whence it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality since a part is included in the whole” (Brandt 1992, pp.197-198). The concept of utilitarianism was ushered in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help the legislative units frame different laws that are morally optimal. In the utilitarian approach, firstly, various courses of action are identified. After that, the entities to be possibly affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be caused by each action need to be evaluated. Lastly, a certain action is chosen to produce&nbsp.the greatest benefits and least harm (Velasquez et al., 2010).

Freedom of speech is invariably represented as a fundamental right by the written Constitution and bills against state suppression and regulation. Freedom of speech is an important concept. The prime function of freedom of speech is a representative range of views. These views are mainly responsible for the decision-making processes at all levels in a societal structure.

According to the majority of the philosophers, the general notion of belief is that there is compatibility between utilitarianism and moral rights. For instance, the famous British philosopher John Stuart Mill, whose contribution is immense in the field of philosophy, perceives a congruency between utilitarianism and moral rights. The constitutional right to freedom of speech enables an individual to protect his freedom of expression (Wellman 2005, p.145). Philosopher Mill loyally supported utilitarianism, and at the same time, defended freedom of speech until or unless it torments the sentiments of others. However, some philosophers believe that there is an incongruous relation between utilitarianism and moral rights (Brandt 1984, p.1).

To understand the interaction between utilitarianism and moral rights, it is necessary to define utilitarianism at first. According to John Stuart Mill, “the utilitarian approach is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing, desirable as an end. all other things being desirable as means to that end.” In support of this, he has also mentioned: “If so, happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it is the test by which to judge of all human conduct, from whence it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality since a part is included in the whole” (Brandt 1992, pp.197-198). The concept of utilitarianism was ushered in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help the legislative units frame different laws that are morally optimal. In the utilitarian approach, firstly, various courses of action are identified. After that, the entities to be possibly affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be caused by each action need to be evaluated. Lastly, a certain action is chosen to produce&nbsp.the greatest benefits and least harm (Velasquez et al., 2010).

Freedom of speech is invariably represented as a fundamental right by the written Constitution and bills against state suppression and regulation. Freedom of speech is an important concept. The prime function of freedom of speech is a representative range of views. These views are mainly responsible for the decision-making processes at all levels in a societal structure.

For instant when one has received urgent `appalling information, concerning the death of the most loved ones in the family, the victim will be traumatized, for example, one receiving the news about the death of the mother, or father who are close family members.

Trauma might have a very negative effect on our minds and bodies, when one perceives a threat, the body will activate the stress response hormone. The response occurs in both the body and mind. It’s for an emergency, adrenaline together with other hormones is released. The body will shut down the process connected with such long-term care. When the body is under immediate danger, the reproduction, digestion, cell repairs, and the body task related to long term functioning become unimportant. The immediate vital is the survival of the victim. the increased blood sugar provides more energy for the muscle (Van, 43).

Individuals undergoing trauma, may longer-term reactions that include unforeseen, emotional flashbacks, nervous relationships, or even physical symptoms such as nausea or headache. The feelings of trauma are normal, but some people may have difficulties moving on with their normal daily life provision. Through the attendance to the psychologist’s trauma, provision is treated, by looking for constructive ways for such an individual’s effectiveness in managing their emotions. If individuals suffering from trauma are not taken care of, their situation becomes more worsen hence can die.

Disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes transportation accidents, hurricanes or wildfires are classically unanticipated, impulsive, and overpowering. There are no superficially visible signs of physical wound, but an emotional toll. Following such a situation, one may feel bewildered, disoriented, or unable to integrated upsetting information (Van, 43). Once these preliminary reactions subside, individuals may experience a variety of behaviors and thoughts. The common responses may be, changes to thoughts and the behavior patterns individuals might experience repeated and the glowing memories of that event.