Amie Bradley T/R phil 3 The Future Meaning of War There are many reasons why the U.S. needs to stop military spending around the world. Focusing to the most pertinent factors we see that: Our nation is in the largest amount of debt in not only its own history, but the history of mankind. Also our system of acting as a police like force for the entire world actually creates more tension and violence. This police-like image of the U.S. creates much more conflict amongst other countries, which antagonizes and creates a type of ‘want’ for more reasons to conflict war. The last reason to reject our ‘world-wide military spread’ (which is also the most in depth and most difficult of the three reasons to understand) is: The future’s national meaning and common understanding of ‘war.’ This can also be explained as the ‘Future’s way of participating in a war.
The Tariff placed high taxes on imports leading to a decline in international trade. The United States held many loans with European countries that began to default. Reduction in international market spending in the US, coupled with the high tariffs placed on foreign countries led to unemployment abroad and foreign countries were forced to impose their own tariffs on other countries (Kelly, n.d.). The Great Depression was perhaps most devastating to the individual and family. The Depression was recorded to have decreased the marriage rate which helped lead to a decline in the birth rate.
e. a drastic decline in worker productivity. 2. Lyndon Johnson’s insistence on fighting the Vietnam War and finding the Great Society with a tax increase to pay for them led to a. a drastic inflation of prices in the 1970s. b. a decline in the competitive advantage of American business. c. severe cutbacks in the size of the federal government.
Bryan Downey Mosaic, IH 852 Section March 7, 2013 Unit 2: Power- Do you think war is a good (even noble) and necessary part of human experience, or a barbaric anti-human activity? Make an argument citing examples from our texts. While it is obvious that war destroys millions of lives, it can be argued that it has probably saved millions of lives as well. Wars spawn new life-saving technology, stimulate economies, and force countries to continuously engage in higher forms of diplomacy. War created the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, and the Red Cross.
Leaders from the top down would ask what we’re doing, why we’re doing it and finally how we could do it better. As David Bolgiano and Colonel James Patterson describe in their book Fighting Today’s Wars, however, none of those questions are being answered today. Instead, the focus has become solely based around counterinsurgency and nation building. This has lead to tremendous increases in defense spending and mission creep, while severely hurting America’s ability to carry out force-on-force combat missions. In the days of multi-trillion dollar deficits, our military efforts should be focused on war fighting and defensive capabilities as opposed to the horribly expensive and never-ending nation-building and peacekeeping operations 1.
Current economic troubles brings the disparity between military “perks”, which have actually grown in recent years, and the loss of security felt by so much of the civilian sector. Thus the debate turns to the expense of the military, its necessity in its current (expensive) incarnation, and seeming inequity between its members and civilian society. What follows is a discussion of the rise of the Warrior Class from two different theoretical vantage points. First is what Davis and Moore might well have thought of the subject, focusing on how the Warrior Class came about. Next is an application of Swidler’s “toolkit” theory, highlighting the resultant distinct strategies that Warrior Class’ culture provides its member, further driving home the disparity.
With that information being stated ideological differences are most likely the cause of most wars. For example, the Cold War. The contrast between two US presidents in Yalta and Postdam conferences showed that the increasing tension between two superpowers wasn’t mainly due to ideological difference, rather it was Truman’s lack of experience and judgment had worsened the two relations. However, the ideological difference did play a significant role in the Marshall Plan because it was found in the American economic and political system. The liberal capitalist US economy needed ever increasing trade and investment opportunities to overcome its endemic weaknesses, (Mccauley).
A third example could be The United States as a country and the war we’re in with Iraq. The US has ambition for power over Iraq and their oil. Many people, including myself think the war is evil because it has cost us billions of dollars and a lot of people have died. If ambition for power and other things didn’t exist, many evil events in history wouldn’t never had happened and billions of lives wouldn’t have been lost. In conclusion, ambition can cause evil from military conquests to even ambition to get good grades by
It is also necessary to allow foreign products to come in so competition will increase. Basic ally, the underlying flaw under foreign product taxes is that it cuts off greater innovations and negatively affects our economy. -Even if we wanted to improve, remove taxes b/c by imposing taxes we don’t accept new ideas into our companies and nothing is innovative anymore. We are promoting isolationism -By allowing foreign products to come in, competition is brought about and we work to improve upon it. Each side improves the product and it continues in a circle.
Can war ever be justified? So what do people mean by war? It is simple war is a state of armed conflict involving different countries or different groups within a country. War is unjustifiable because it effects the world in a negative way and many countries don’t realize the moral standards of other countries. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely however there is other options to settle this matter which I will mention later.