Firstly, that the waging of war is off the back of every possible alternate method of peaceful resolution being exhausted. If mediation or negotiation are ignored and battle is the chief intention from the outset a war is not considered just and should not be engaged in. Secondly, a ‘just’ war must have the backing of an authority that is able and permitted to sanction the call of warfare. A private person or a group with no legal entitlement would not be able to wage a just war as they do not have the right or the capacity to do so. Thirdly, a just war is one that is waged because the party waging it have suffered a wrong and are seeking to rectify the situation.
I believe that Jefferson contributions to the country are greater than his character flaws and I also believe that no good can come from revealing them. He was the founder of our country and also helped shaped the country so we can be where we are right now. Regarding slavery, I believe that Jefferson knew it was wrong but maybe he didn’t know what to do about it at the time, He didn’t have enough power to stop it so he had to live with it knowing it was wrong and immoral, and He also proposed a bill to stop slavery but it was not approved. Thomas Jefferson is the author of the Declaration of American independence. That is how is written on his tombstone and it should be remember that way, like a hero.
31) as he “like[s] not the smell of this ‘authority’” (1. 31). Here, he underscores one of his biggest objections to Parris’ leadership, the reverend’s inability to rule by praise of the Lord and his tendency to rule by fear of Hell; a minister’s influence in society should be more brightening than darkening. Furthermore, in regards to Parris’ leadership, John sees him as a person less concerned about spreading the word of goodness and God and more concerned about material
(1) what was the author’s thesis? Banning the burqa is without doubt a terrible assault on the ideal of religious liberty. It is the sign of a desperate society. No one wishes for things to have come so far that it is necessary. But they have, and it is.
Lincoln points out that he, as well as the rest of the country, did not want to go to war but realized that it was the only way out of the problems arising. He also goes on to say that both sides had the power to stop the war and that was brewing. He makes clear the fact that, if desired, all violence could have been avoided. Lincoln does a great deal of comparisons between the north and the south in his speech. He brings out the flaws in both sides, and ultimately puts the blame on the feuding between the two sides.
There are reasons to support both sides of the issue. War is seen by most as a measure that should only be used if there is no other alternative. Some would argue that war should be an offensive strategy because if we perceive a country as a threat, we should be able fight them. And the others point out that war should never be used. Only diplomatic resolutions should be used in a modern society.
The policy of The British Empire as set by Her Majesty’s Government was to avoid becoming embroiled in the conflict on either side, in short to remain neutral. To senior members of HMG the risks of becoming involved through recognition, conflict or mediation were too great. However neither the United States nor the Confederacy was contented by this and from the very beginning HMG was pitted in a fierce battle for neutrality from the twin forces of Yankee antagonism and Southern favouritism. NEUTRALITY
While it is true that the commander chief is able to get away with misbehaver. Military personal has been warned not to criticize the chief. In fact the various branches have been reaming troops that they can be prosecuted for publicly condemning their chief and in fact there are cases pending on this very matter. In a way, this seems unfair and there is a debate as to whether or not they should be allowed to criticize the president. But that debate is only among civilians who do not understand military life.
Therefore, this suggests society has lost confidence and belief in religion. When analysing the poem, it can be understood that Yeats infers that history will repeat itself through the image of a “widening gyre”. The Second Coming was written in 1919 in the aftermath of the First Word War. This war was also known as ‘The War to End all Wars’ because it was so terrible that it was hoped that it would be the last. However, the use of “widening gyre” and “tide” highlights a sense of foreboding, suggesting that history will make a reoccurrence and peace will never be restored because society will not learn from its mistakes.
He cites the existence of unjust laws and declares that we as citizens should not be obligated to follow them. The basis for this argument is that the government is run by a majority with the most power, not the most valid perspective. This is the reason why Thoreau advises citizens to follow what they believe to be right and not embrace what the government says. Thoreau states that is not a man’s duty to pledge to eradicate all wrongs from his country but that it is one’s duty to “wash his hands” of it and to not support the wrong in anyway (page 183 para13). He continues to tell a story of how he used this method to protest the Mexican American War which was being waged at the time the essay was written.