War. It is a pretty broad subject, especially in books. In fact, it is what Ender’s Game, written by Orson Scott Card, was written entirely about. But what is war? According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, war is described as “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a state of usual open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end.” This is a logical explanation, but it brings up a question.
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.
Why Nations go to War “Mortals made these decisions. They made them in fear and in trembling, but they made them nonetheless” (Stoessinger 4). This is something that Dr. John G. Stoessinger implies in his book Why Nations go to War. Stoessinger organized his book to look at the events that led to specific wars of the twentieth century. He discusses prime wars such as, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam, and the wars in the Middle East.
The name of the poem implies that the poet was a proponent of war, but contradictorily we discover that he was not. Undoubtedly, Owen had the practical, realistic knowledge to informatively and effectively portray the war scene. He experienced first-hand the physical, psychological and emotional effects of war on a human being. Although both speakers had contradictory concepts about war based on their own values, knowledge and experiences, they presented their theories with equivalent zeal, tenacity and passion. The speakers are fixated in their beliefs, and adamant about their concepts of war.
8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
Francesca Milone Mrs. Holton AP Language (P2) 10 September 2011 The Things They Carried: Fact Versus Fiction Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried emphasizes not only the surreality of war, but also where to draw the line into reality. The makes up characters, places, and stories to get his argument across throughout the novel, making it contradictory and fictitious, but at the same time creating a sense of reality. In The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien illuminates the differences between fact and fiction, mainly within the context of war, to demonstrate that no person can understand what takes place in a war unless he or she has actually been there. Tim O'Brien contradicts himself and others by highlighting fact and claiming later
His aim is not poetry, but to describe the full horrors of war. In this essay I have firstly decided to analyze two poems by the war poet Wilfred Owen, taken from his writings on the First World War. Both 'Dulce et Decorum est' and 'Disabled" portray Owen's bitter angst towards the war, but do so in different ways. Then I will analyze a very different poem 'Who's for the Game?' written by Jessie Pope, and finally contrast this with the poems by Owen.
David Osborn HIST 202 Principles of War Professor Howard J. Fuller Research Essay 2 The use of asymmetric, or irregular, warfare by our adversaries has changed how we fight on today’s modern battlefield and helped to redefine our doctrine. The MacMillian Dictionary defines asymmetric warfare as: Acts of war against countries and ordinary people by individuals or groups who are not part of a country's army. A more globally accepted definition is: War between belligerents whose relative power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This type of warfare, all though not new, has caused Commanders and doctrine writers alike to look for new Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP) in which to engage this enemy; for their tactics are increasingly unpredictable and irregular. “Future adversaries are more likely to pose irregular threats.” Many tacticians and strategist alike long for the days of a battlefield that was understandable and had symmetry as to the conduct of warfare.
Perhaps O’Brien sought to chronicle through fiction those whose experiences would ‘speak out and speak up’ from the battlefield. In any case, one rationally may presume that O’Brien’s works mirror the public’s distaste for the war. Following this rationale, one also may presume a substantial degree of commonality between the management of the theme of war across each preceding literary period and the Postmodern
key causes of war: Depending on which conflict that is being referred to the key causes of war are many and very broad. The key causes that are put foward include the theory of Structuralism which refers to the changing in the distribution of power within the global system as the primary factor in determining a states behavior. Enduring rivalries which is prolonged competition between great powers or other pairs of countries whos conflicting interests often lead to war. Balance of power which explains the tendency of opposed coalitions to be formed so the distribution of military power is balanced to prevent one single power from dominating others. Rational choice is the theory that decison makers choose on the basis of what is best for themselves and their states.