The USA believed its actions were justified by labelling them as self defence under Article 51 of the UN charter. This clearly shows that the USA based its responses to international aggression on protecting their own national interests. In addition, the USA further showed that their response to international aggression was based on their own national interests with their invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The USA believed Saddam Hussein to have been harbouring weapons of mass destruction which could be made available to the al-Qaeda to which they invaded with Britain, legitimising their actions by again stating it was due to self defence as they perceived themselves to be under threat. This was against the wishes of member
Kennan predicted the types of laws the Soviet would try to make to defeat the U.S. and explained why we should accept them. Keenan believed that we did not have to go to war to put a stop to the Soviet Union, although this letter leads to the Cold War. Kennan felt the Union would eventually collapse on their own because they were built on weak principles like isolationism and fear. Kennan in all was trying to make the United States stand up for what we knew was right, if the U.S got stronger in political and economic influences we could stop communism and the Soviet Union. The NSC-68 was way more aggressive than the Long Telegram instead of discussion; the NSC-68 was more direct.
Habeas Corpus shouldn’t have been brought up here, being an American citizen you have this right along with due process, but once you fight on the side of the opposition you should renounce such rights. To hear one case just because someone was born in the United States is not right to the other detainees that were caught alongside Hamdi. Enemy combatants are given certain rights to counsel now and I feel that the same outcome could have been reached if the Supreme Court would have remained out of this case. The Executive Branch should have optimal preference on proceedings about enemy combatants/detainees. The President is our Commander in Chief, taking his powers away presses him not to be able to do his sworn duties to keep our nation safe.
This is a war that began with your invasion of Kuwait; this is a war that can be ended only by Iraq’s full and unconditional compliance with UN Security Council resolution 678. 2. I am writing to you now, directly, because what is at stake demands that no opportunity be lost to avoid what would be a certain calamity for the people of Iraq. I am writing, as well, because it is said by some that you do not understand just how isolated Iraq is and what Iraq faces as a result. 3.
Both of these essays show the history behind the war and the reasons of why it took place and why it should not have transpired. Fredrick’s Logevall convincingly argues in his essay Choosing War that the Vietnam War was a choice and not a necessary war to fight for the United States and how it could have been avoided. In his book, Logevall agrees that the Vietnam War is a significant part of our history that had huge impact on our nation and should not have occurred. He begins his essay by describing the events that took place in the beginning of the war. In this essay, Logevall communicates to us his philosophies that the Vietnam War was an error of judgment.
During the creation of Constitution, each state had to approve it. During this time there were people who supported it, Federalist and who did not, Anti-Federalists. I am siding with Anti-Federalist since they were right in thinking they did not want to give all their power away to the national government. If you lived in a state separate from where government state is established, how would you get your problems in your state solved if you had a government who was telling you what to do but not really knowing what problems you had in your state. If I lived back in that time, and having just finished the war with Britain where we finally got our independence, I would remind people all the issues we had.
At the time it was endlessly debated as to whether going to war with the British was the right thing to do, but it was eventually decided that it was necessary in order to gain our independence. The lives lost were clearly a negative, but they were not lost in vain as they contributed to a higher purpose. Our country continued to deal with war, not only with other states but also within its borders. After experiencing the agony of several wars, the majority of Americans were resolute in their indifference to waging or aiding conflict abroad or otherwise. From there our government developed a policy of isolationism (for the most part) until after our involvement in World Wars I and II.
Though he has the same thought as Roosevelt the fear has changed from war to terrorist attacks. He quotes “we stand united in the defense of our countries and against those who would terrorize our people”. Even though the fears are different they are the same. They both present fear of attacks on America. Also they are at different times but that doesn’t stop these two presidents from thinking alike, meaning standing together united to come above the situation under any
To what extent was the First World War either a Total War or a Limited War? “If we don't end war, war will end us”. It is human nature to fight. Either for survival, hate or power they all have the same devastating consequences. Throughout this essay I will be analyzing World War 1 as a total or limited war.
Preemptive war and pre punishment are similar in that they both act first before an attack is made or a crime is committed. Based on my understanding of the readings thus far, I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference between pre punishment and pre emptive war. The main difference between the two is that preemptive war is in response to imminent aggression from another state while pre punishment is the act of punishing a person(s) for a crime they have been perceived of committing and have yet to commit. Michael Walzer describes preemptive war as an always justified war occurring to stop an imminent attack as opposed to sitting back and waiting to be attacked. Walzer gives an example by describing the Six Day War