My current stance on the topic of war is that I am affirmative of war because the purpose of war is something I believe truly in. The purpose of intent in war is to unify the country which is something that I find value in. In rare situations, war could sometimes be altered with a better alternative, which then would make the war at that time pointless. If my writing ability allows, this research paper could be one of the best that I have written. If not, it sure will be an adventurous one in the least.
But was it a "just war," an "unjust war" or some combination of both? This paper will try to answer that question. Before we can apply the principles of just or unjust war to the struggle in America in the 1860s, we have to find out what the terms mean. They are philosophical, and people have been wrestling with them since ancient times. War itself has a very specific definition, which it is useful to mention here because we have to know what war is before we can determine whether or not it is just.
In Why Nations Go to War, Dr.John G Stoessinger talks about the role of individuals in starting wars. He is of the view that factors like economics, nationalism, alliance networks and even fate are often put forward as the primary reasons for the outbreak of a war, but the human element, the personalities, the hopes and fears and the particular worldview of the individual leaders of the country are not given nearly as much importance. The writer points out that wars are after all, started by people and to a large extent, the book deals with the lead up to the moment when people finally decide to go to war. The author holds a Ph.D. from Harvard and has taught at Harvard, M.I.T, Columbia and Princeton. He won the Bancroft Prize for his book, The Might of Nations and he has served as acting director for the political affairs division at the United Nations.
Foreign and Defense Policy Everest University Trina Harrison American National Government Instructor: Timothy Mozia July 5, 2014 Many ask to what extent the war on terrorism represents a break with previous United States foreign and defense policy. This question holds a great deal of validity to where we are right now. In order to answer this question, we have to establish why this war on terrorism? Perhaps how it has been addressed is uniquely different from other engagements in U.S. Foreign Policy History. If it is to be believed, this particular war is uniquely different than prior involvements of the United States because of its dynamic nature.
The First World War did not arise primarily as a result of planned Germany aggression. Discuss. The First World War started due to many of reasons, many Historians’, such as Fischer, argue that it could have been down to Germany’s aggression and that Germany had always been planning a war. This is supported by Source two, written by James Joll, which argues that the war did result of planned German aggression. Meanwhile, other Historians, such as Steven Ozment in, sources one, believe the First World War started from various other reasons such as alliances, arms race and all countries just slithered into war.
I think that what should be done is what Sen. McCain proposes, I have gone many times through his plan and I think that is better than Sen. Obama’s plan. Sen. McCain explains clearly that withdrawing would bring total instability to Iraq which is true because right now there is not a stable government yet. If Sen. Obama’s Plan was followed then there would be a big problem because then it would be a fact that Iraq
This freedom also opened doors for abuse. Armies, necessary to protect freedom, were able to bully other nations. There were two safeguards against the menacing instability. The first safeguard was a doctrine and it stated: wars were made by hungry, arrogant, ignorant, oppressed men. It was thought that the new world would get rid of the need for war.
These technological innovations had a major impact on the way people fought the Civil War. Even more important were the technologies that did not directly play roles in the battle, however played major impacts on the war itself, like the railroad and the telegraph. Innovations like these did not just change the way people fought wars, they also changed the way people lived. As the years progressed, so did the advancements. Before the Civil War, soldiers would use muskets.
When we know about history, we know that we are apart of a great success. Human beings are a social being and its evolution depends and will depend on the transmission of knowledge. New generations are getting smarter every day because of the knowledge of the ancestors. War has been and is a continuation of politics, but by other means. The territorial disputes, the domain of a civilization over another, fights on inheritance rights or trade routes are trying to solve through diplomacy and have failed, is when war has been declared.
One of the most controversial conflicts in our Nations history is definitely the Vietnam War. Today there is a lot of skepticism with America’s involvement in the War and I believe the biggest thing that gave people so much skepticism is the media’s portrayal of the War. The mainstream news stations of the time seemed to care more about entertainment, trying to get the most interesting story in order to keep their ratings high and keep people on the edge of their seat. The Documentary we watched in class gave a good look at how the media was more into story telling and less into giving people the facts that they deserve. I think that the film did a really good job at exposing the media for it’s horrible performance during the Vietnam War.