Definition Argument - Liberation

1950 Words8 Pages
The True Meaning of Liberation When the United States led an invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was great dissent over whether there was enough justification for the invasion. The president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, had been accused of holding weapons of mass destruction as well as committing several crimes against the people of Iraq. The United States government held that Saddam’s regime was threatening to the world and its own people, and many Americans supportive of the government since 9/11 thought the same. However, there was a wave of protests across western countries condemning the act. These protestors argued that there were not enough reasons to justify an invasion of Iraq. The same argument can be applied to American involvement in many other affairs today, such as its debated intervention in the Syrian Civil War and the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. When should deciding the fate of a foreign country be justified? The answer is to determine how the people living in the country will be affected. Many historical events, especially the conflicts in World War II, have shown when foreign invasions have been justified, and when they have not. Only when the people are being freed, or liberated, from an oppressive regime can changing their society be justified. The idea of liberation is nothing new, but it is still relevant in conflicts today. The morality, rationale and laws behind starting wars have changed greatly in the past century. Today, many governments still hold the historic idea that a war in a foreign land can be justified if they are doing good for the people living in the area they are attacking. The idea of liberation, to overthrow or defeat an oppressive or unjust ruler and free the people being ruled over, has become one of the most common justifications of war in the modern day. However, most of the time the forces that see themselves as liberators

More about Definition Argument - Liberation

Open Document