General Douglas MacArthur stated, “Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be duty, honor, country. First, professionals are who and what they are because they acquire expertise. They produce uniquely expert work, not routine or repetitive work. Doctors, Lawyers and Soldiers all share in this unique responsibility. Effectiveness, rather than pure efficiency, is the key to the work of professionals—the sick want a cure, the accused want exoneration, and the defenseless seek security.
Harry Williamson Response Paper Letter from a Birmingham jail In the article Disagreements About Civil Disobedience Divide America's Anti War Movement we are presented with several views of civil disobedience present in todays society. The sole goal of these organizations is to end the war in Iraq because the members believe what is happening overseas is unjust and immoral. The feud between the organizations is simple; what are the best steps to help end the war? The cultural relativism aspect of this situation is that America (our current day society) wants war with another country, these two organizations are attempting to change that view. On one side you have people like Patrick Reinsborough who is an Organizer of Direct Action Against the War.
According to Woodruff, justification makes an action right and an excuse only reduces the blame for an action that is wrong. The important question that is asked in this essay is, “can a soldier at war clear himself of blame for killing civilians on the grounds that he does so to save his own life? (282).” In other words, can a soldier justify himself for killing civilians, or does he just end up with an excuse? As indicated by Woodruff, a soldier with perfectly respectable morals may run in to some tribulations when attempting to justify his actions in war. Self-defense seems to be the key reason for harming, or even killing another person.
This was one intention of our Forefathers when establishing the addendum of the Second Amendment. Allowing citizens the right to protect and defend their property and family from evading forces. At the time when the country was at war and constant violence this was the only way to ensure safety. The military needed to be where the fighting was, and this left the citizens at the mercy of the enemy. The Second Amendment gave the average citizen the right to protect his or her family and property without fear of imprisonment.
It is widely recognised that the military and the soldiers individually are part of a community that would demand of them to put their personal and professional values aside to serve the moral good. It is not believed to be the responsibility of the military to assess whether or not a war is just – certainly not down to the individual soldier. Wolfendale argues that each soldier has a duty to familiarise his/herself with the principles of just war theory to be able to assess themselves, whether they are partaking in a just war. Arguments Wolfendale supports her claim by first identifying the military as a profession, which in itself demands professional integrity, i.e. a way of determining the best way to conduct the work as a soldier and where the moral limits to that service is – when the soldier should stop fighting the war.
We are to keep the peace among the nations of the earth because that is our belief as a people, but we must know our enemy, we must know their intentions and what they wish to carry out. Terrorists do not adhere to the custom of respect of an individual. They act as animals, slaughtering without remorse. They do not deserve the rights of our nation or of man. The argument for the Justification of torture on terrorists is completely justifiable and the only course of action in ascertaining vital information for the nation’s defense.
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
Many legal experts now describe the attack of Iraq as an act of aggression and violating international law and accuse Britain and the US. This is because there is no the authorization of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq had no WMD since 1992. Therefore, the sanctions were illegal crimes and the war on Iraq is an act of aggression in gross violation of U.N. Charter. UN Secretary General stated that “the use of force without Council endorsement would not be in conformity with the Charter". President Bush’s war campaign into Iraq is not justified under article fifty-one of the United Nations charter.
One of the most important principles un-derlying the conduct of war has to be pro-activeness. This is aptly captured by the following saying by Sun Tzi: "In the conduct of war, one must not rely on the enemy's failure to come, but on one's readiness to engage him; One must not rely on the enemy's failure to attack, but on one's ability to build an in-vincible defence. In war, as appropriately pointed out by Sun Tzi, one cannot rely on the failure of the enemy to attack us. Instead, one must be ever ready to take on the enemy. In addi-tion, the defence must be so strong that the enemy would not even dare to contemplate an attack.
Lincoln Douglas Debate Case Outline Negative “Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve.” It is because I agree with Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy that I feel compelled to negate today’s resolution, Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. For clarification of today’s round, I offer the following definitions : First, I would like to define foreign policy. Foreign policy is defined by dictionary.com as a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives. Targeted killing is defined as the premeditated killing of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield. The highest value in today's debate is that of utilitarianism.