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.
His account of this war was based on his personal experiences and the statements of eyewitnesses, and continues to be recognized as an important work of political theory. There are some who downplay its importance, citing that it does not take into account the ability of man to change and become better human beings. However, history has borne out that human nature is not able to be completely reshaped and therefore, Thucydides reasoning that those with all of the power will continue to promote self-interest and ignore justice can be
8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
(2) The laws of war cannot be precisely deduced from history for the obvious reason that history never exactly repeats itself. Certain teachings in the school of history remain constant, but because of change theories of the future are thoroughly presumptive. (3) History helps the strategist ask the right questions to define the problem. The questions, suggested by the history of war and diplomacy, are: What is it about? What is the proper way to go about it?
Do Stricter Gun-Control Laws Help Prevent Gun-Related Injuries/Deaths? Gun control arguments are a hot topic in America and around the world; it is a topic not likely to go away anytime soon. Arguments for and against carry their own merit and can be lengthy and broad by nature, but our intent is to debate the effect of gun-control laws and the effect they have on gun-related injuries/deaths. The argument presented here will get to the crux of why laws should or should not be enacted to prevent social ills. Most agree that gun-related injury or death of innocent citizens should never be tolerated, but there are opinions on the course to take in an effort to discover a solution.
All things considered, the endeavor to question these arguments as a reason not to trust in God does not merit endeavoring. In the event that theists don't for the most part hold to these proofs as explanations behind faith, then why try attempting to question them to theists? Keeping on doing as such appears as though he is persuaded to demonstrate a point that few are not interested on questioning, and accordingly is intentionally attempting to set up theist conviction as crazy; at the end of the day, he is looking to start a fight. This is not a scholarly target article. Inclination essentially relinquishes scholarly objectivity.
You cannot build up a standing army and then throw it back into a box like tin soldiers. "If this was the true feeling of militarism in America, then militarism assuredly played a role in America entering the war, because America may have subconsciously wanted to prove their strength by helping in this conflict.All in all, there is not one, certain reason that completely explains why America entered World War I. However, there are many reasons, that when combined, form a very reasonable explanation as to why Americans entered the war. This explanation includes events varying from being attacked by outside countries while they were making an attempt at neutrality, to America's relations with Britain, and even inclusive of the possibility that America may have only been trying to prove something to themselves. Conclusively, America entered the Great War because of a variety of reasons.
Apart from that fact, it is objectionably inhumane for us to “play God” and decide whose lives we are justified to take. The Green Party takes a unified stand in opposition to the war in Iraq. This viewpoint is diametrical to that of the Republicans, who claim that the war is necessary and that it is reassembling our world as one free from terrorism. The Democrats, on the other hand, stand somewhere between these two parties and haven’t wholly decided their feeling on the Iraqi
Can War Ever be Justified Can war ever be justified? Some people believe it can be in exceptional circumstances, whilst others believe that it can never be justified and there is no circumstance in which it can be justified. ‘In the west there is a long standing culture of differentiating between “just” and “unjust” wars’( taken from an unknown author on about.com.) This is a good example because it shows that even in the same culture people believe different things and that different thing makes war just whilst other things make war unjust. The strongest argument is that war is acceptable if it’s in self defence or in the defence of a weaker power incapable of defending its self against a stronger power; in liberating people from an oppressive dictatorship or government; finally where the conflict will save more people than it kills.
The Treaty of Versailles is an issue that has garnered much controversy and contention on the topic of whether or not it was fair. The byzantine web of diverse opinions often bars one from a neutral and unbiased insight into the degree of equitability of the Treaty of Versailles. While many argue that the terms were too harsh for the deemed “aggressor” of the war, Germany, others assert that the Treaty was really quite lenient. Although it is impossible to stamp the Treaty as absolutely fair or unfair, it is conceivable to analyze whether it was equitable based on the outcome and effect it brought forth. In the era of the World War I, for the deemed aggressor to take responsibility was not an unfair or preposterous idea.