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.
Of all the ideas and theories Clausewitz presented in On War, my belief is that the most important and enduring elements are his idea that war is an extension of policy, his analysis of strategy, the trinity theory and his explanation of the components of war including friction in war, the fog of war and his centre of gravity theory. These ideas and theories from Clausewitz’s On War will be discussed in this essay and presented as his most important and enduring contributions to the theory of warfare. Clausewitz defined war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will” (Clausewitz, P101) but argued that war should only be entered into when diplomatic methods fail as war is a continuation of politics and controlled by a political objective which is aimed at improving the situation. However war can therefore can vary depending on the nature of the policy and society of the time in which the war is waged. Clausewitz stated that success in war requires clear political aims and an adequate strategy (Clausewitz, P101).
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.
For these political aggressors, war is not merely a metaphor or the equivalent of a sports analogy. It is far more profound and stems from the conflict of “world view,” usually described as a “Biblical World view” against everything else. It is explicitly understood by its proponents as a religious war and waged accordingly on multiple fronts, mostly in terms we have come to define as “cultural.” How the conflict plays out takes on political dimensions and sometimes physical conflict. This war is theocratic in nature, and seeks
Since the basic of all human nature is to obtain power, we can assume that there is something that the US wants besides trying to stop the use of chemical weapons. With the past conflicts that we have had in the middle east, why do we need to try and topple a government or be the police for the area and try to neutralize the situation. When we ask ourselves what do we have to gain from this besides more power after the cost of many American lives, is it really worth to have a repeat situation like Iraq and Pakistan? “The character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.” (Morgenthau) The roots of all human nature is to obtain power, so out of losing many American soldiers lives, what do we gain? If we would have been more involved when we saw the sparks of conflict start, why did we not try to neutralize the sparks instead of fighting a huge wildfire.
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
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
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.
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.
As he states, the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz finds it imprudent for states to search for global hegemony “because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p73). Since the question of power is not answered by the defensive theory, interest shifts towards the other model. Accordingly, offensive realism finds it admissible to certify that survival is the ultimate goal, and power is just the tool (measurable) to ensure that end is fully realized: “The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure one’s own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival.” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p74). That is why Mearsheimer sustains that USA will be ultimately forced to react to China’s rise in the future.