The injuries inflicted in the war must fit the violence that was displayed; assuring that unnecessary force was not used. All in all, a Just War must be fought with the right intentions The War in Iraq started March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq from the United States. According to the principles of Just War tradition, “The war can only be waged as the last resort, with all nonviolent actions exhausted”. Other nonviolent alternatives were clear and different measures could’ve been sought. The first planned attack was to send 3,000 bombs and missiles out on the Iraqi people where civilians were among the population, unarmed and innocent.
In my view of this it seems futile to talk of permanent, everlasting peace or to make plans for the peace. A particularly disturbing side of modern wars is that they tend to become global so that they may engulf the entire world. An example of this would be the War on Terror that the United States is now fighting. But there are people who consider war as something grand and heroic and regard it as something that bring out the best in man, but this does not in any way alter the fact that war is a terrible, and dreadful to our society. War helps our society grow.
It is not acceptable to go beyond legal, moral, and/or ethical boundaries when the nation is at a risky time of war, but only on certain conditions. Some issues discussing this are the neutralism of U.S., the Executive Order #9066 declared by FDR, and the decision to drop the bomb. These issues greatly impacted America’s standing in the world and history immensely. It was recorded into history for the mistakes that we did and the damage we caused. The U.S. struggled with each issue and did what they thought was right, even if damage was caused.
After the video surfaced, the media picked apart the video shot for shot and analyzed whether or not the soldier did the right or moral thing by engaging those civilians. The question should not be whether or not the soldier should have engaged but why there were children on the battlefield at all. The would-be rescuer knew there was a risk coming into a location where shots had been fired. They ought to know better than to bring children into a possibly dangerous area. If one looks at this situation without Kantian analysis, the attack seems to be caused by a trigger happy soldier who was looking for an excuse to murder.
Throughout his whole speech, he uses an anger and disparaging tome to reflect Bush’s point of view. Overall, George Bush uses emotional appeal, metaphors, and tone to portray Al Qaeda as iniquitous freedom haters which persuades the audience to recognise his contention and accept his point of view. Americans are depicted as victims of war from the September 11th terrorist incident with George Bush’s speech. An anecdote is used in the first paragraph to portray this: “...Americans have known the casualties of war--but not at the centre of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks—but never before on thousands of civilians.
Michael Walzer argues that there is an important moral difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism in his just war theory. The war convention prohibits combatants from intentionally killing civilians and imposing foreseeable harm on noncombatants that are disproportionate to a military end, thus the jus in bello criteria of proportionality and discrimination are crucial for assessing whether or not a military action is just and morally acceptable. Walzer argues that it is most preferable that civilians have a right that “due care” is taken by combatants to avoid imposing unnecessary and inappropriate risks of harm and death upon them. [1] This claim about civilian rights and noncombatant immunity works to impose restrictions and prohibitions on certain military tactics and strategies in an effort to prevent military and political leaders from weighing victory over concern for human rights to life and liberty. Walzer distinguishes between guerilla warfare and terrorism, arguing that the latter’s conduct is not justified according to the established rules of war.
This universal norm is rooted in Cicero’s belief that there is a humani generis societas, a "society of mankind rather than of states” (Defrost). Due to his beliefs, Cicero hated war which was why he served a very short term in the military (Clayton). Yet he understood that an entirely passive nation or state would eventually fall prey to more powerful and aggressive ones (Holmes). As a result he formulated
There's a stereotype that the U.S. military should always get involved in conflicts in which human rights violations are occurring, regardless of our safety concerns(Garber). I understand that human rights violations, especially when they occur on a large scale by a rebel leader, the U.S. and other wealthy nations should sit up and take a stand and maybe even do something about it. However, to suggest that the U.S. should stop everything and capture this one man on the say so of three guys who went to Uganda once and outside of any other information about Uganda is ridiculous to
Nothing in either of these plans can be transposed or removed because each step is essential for the plan to be a success and without Sutler’s plan for takeover of government, there would be no reason for V to start a rebellion. Second, the story is credible. The story of V for Vendetta could happen in the world as we know it today. The externally observable truth of the way things really are can be observed by the mention of a few things. The worldwide problems presented by Sutler and his party started with the “American’s War”, referencing the war in Iraq currently in progress.
The True Meaning of Liberation When the United States led an invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was great dissent over whether there was enough justification for the invasion. The president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, had been accused of holding weapons of mass destruction as well as committing several crimes against the people of Iraq. The United States government held that Saddam’s regime was threatening to the world and its own people, and many Americans supportive of the government since 9/11 thought the same. However, there was a wave of protests across western countries condemning the act. These protestors argued that there were not enough reasons to justify an invasion of Iraq.