We do know that religious beliefs causes war, but I do not think that relgious beliefs justify war. Some beliefs believe that war is a sin, that you shouldn't do it. Some religions believe that war isn't a sin and you will be pinished if you do not go fight for your god. Document 1 (Bhagavad-Gita, the Hindu song of God) , document 4 (Haji according to the Quran 4:74-74) , and document 5 ( Pope Innocent 3 in Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) are grouped together because they believe that you will be punished if you do not participate in war for your god. In documnet 1, they were disgraced they didn't fight.
The intention was to motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts, prevent war and to limit its effects. The conditions of a Just War are: * it must be fought by a legal recognised authority, eg, a government * the cause of the war must be just * the war must be fought with the intention to establish good or correct evil * there must be a reasonable chance of success * the war must be the last resort (after all diplomatic negotiations have been tried and failed) * only sufficient force must be used and civilians must not be involved Some wars can appear to meet all of these conditions. For example, World War Two (1939-1945) would appear to have been a Just War: * it was fought by Germany and the Allied countries who were legal authorities * Germany was being attacked for invading other countries * the intention was to correct the evil Hitler was doing for Nazi Germany * the Allies felt that they had a reasonable chance of success and they did win * all forms of negotiation with Hitler and the Third Reich had failed * most of the fighting was limited to the armies concerned and to harbours and munitions sites This looks as though it was a ‘properly constituted’ Just War, but actions like the Allied bombing of Dresden, a two-day raid by almost 2,400 bombers that destroyed the city and killed perhaps 135,000 civilians to virtually no military purpose, certainly broke the final condition. World War 2
King believed in order to stop violence we should not do anything but ignore it. He believed that violence begins more violence. He said “darkness cannot drive out of darkness; only light can do that” (Martin Luther King Jr). He believed that violence can only lead to two things hospital or cemetery. He said “at the center of non-violence stands the principle of love” (Martin Luther King Junior).
King's opinion on civil disobedience. Patrick is anxiously waiting on the facts and then is attempting to skip right into direct action. Organizations such as Win Without War carefully plan their protests to not only get their point across but do it in a justified way that gets the public on their side. The overall goal in Dr. King's mind is to nonviolently protest an unjust law and let the surrounding people realize what's going on and why things need to change. Patricks method not only runs the risk of stirring up a violent situation, but by intervening on somebodys everyday routine you are negatively being viewed by society therefore no one wants to support your cause.
He used this to convince other people to switch for a good after life, which is an important thing to them (doc 2). This document suggests that there are options to conversion depending on the religion of the people facing conversion. Muhammad respected “People of the Book” and did not force them into their religion, but they still had to pay tribute. The conversion, though, was required because they had wars against unbelievers. I would not trust this document though, for it is one sided.
Since the basic of all human nature is to obtain power, we can assume that there is something that the US wants besides trying to stop the use of chemical weapons. With the past conflicts that we have had in the middle east, why do we need to try and topple a government or be the police for the area and try to neutralize the situation. When we ask ourselves what do we have to gain from this besides more power after the cost of many American lives, is it really worth to have a repeat situation like Iraq and Pakistan? “The character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.” (Morgenthau) The roots of all human nature is to obtain power, so out of losing many American soldiers lives, what do we gain? If we would have been more involved when we saw the sparks of conflict start, why did we not try to neutralize the sparks instead of fighting a huge wildfire.
It almost leads us to question Henry’s morals if he is willing to kill infants. Although we assume that Henry is just playing up what will happen because he hasn’t lost control of them yet we have to play with the notion that Henry isn’t on as high of a moral ground as we thought even though it might be a just ground. This speech also uses a lot more detail to describe certain events than the other two speeches. He vividly states, “ the blind and bloody soldier with foul hand defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters:”(34-35). This is very detailed and horrific because he is saying he won’t be able to stop his soldiers from raping the women in the city.
Yes, this nation was founded upon the morals of self-preservation of the individual, but doesn’t that also fall under the category of preservation as a state, not just the individual? As a government, it is its job as the ruling body of the state to protect its citizens. In order to protect its citizens you must be able to defend yourself from your enemies, within and abroad. The men that seek to destroy our way of life are brainwashed fanatics that have been tapped at the psychological core, to unleash a terror unto innocents in the name of a religion. The men of these terror movements are stalwart in their beliefs.
This will be done by focusing on the Just Cause and right authority principle of Jus ad bellum and by highlighting one of the criteria of jus in bello. First, the essay will argue that there was no just cause to start the war in Iraq and that the coalition did not have the right authority, thus explaining why the war was unjust. Afterwards, the focus will shift towards one the classic principles of jus in bello, the “Proportionality of means” , this aims to show that the war was not only unjust, but unjustly fought as well. First of all, a just cause is necessary if we want to speak of a just war. However, this was not the case with the Iraq war.
However, the Terror enforced and promoted laws against equality and liberty ideals. Such rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion were buried deep down when ending with opposition. The Reign of Terror gave birth to laws that were opposed to Christianity, closing churches, and surprisingly making men of the clergy to instead of vow to the church vow to be loyal to the constitution. Those were primitive laws that should have never been meant to see the light of day as they failed to put a stop to such actions that were hurtful to the society. All this barbarism was self-inflicted and could have been avoided.