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.
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.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Rhetorical Analysis Essay- “Civil Disobedience” The public should not obey and respect a faulty, harmful or malfunctioned government. The essay “Civil disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau alerts the public of that idea and expounds upon it in a variety of ways. With his authorative, rebellious and mainly condescending tone, compelling point of view and diction he inspires the readers to espouse his distaste for the U.S. government and their unjust treatment of the American public. Why follow and associate yourself with a stronger, more powerful institution then yourself that is impure, less than perfect and abuses their powers? With that idea implanted into the audience’s mind, Thoreau proceeds to exercise diction while fully getting his point across.
Moreover, in regard to bombing, a chief concern of System of a Down’s moral commentary on violence, Ramsey asserts that “we do not need to know who and where the noncombatants are in order to know know that indiscriminate bombing exceeds the moral limits of warfare that can ever barely be justified” (144). However, while Ramsey’s delineations of war’s ethical boundaries are valuable, the band would ultimately consider them insufficient, because the question Ramsey seeks to answer, “How shall modern war be conducted justly?” is incongruous with the band’s moral epistemology. Modern warfare is an innately unjust phenomenon that
The administration had to somehow convinced the United Nations (UN) that Iraq is not respecting and upholding the laws that they were supposed to be abiding by. The United States determined the defiance in terrorism, sanctions, and weapons of mass destruction, were sufficient violations
Next, he needs to push American exceptionalism. He needs to address President Obama’s escapades to other countries apologizing on behalf of the United States and how wrong that was. This needs to be pushed in debates and in every way possible. The President of the United States needs to be a strong advocate of the country, instead of apologizing and appearing weak in the face of other nations. Allies and adversaries need to know that America seeks peace from a position of strength.
The means justify virtuous ends. JAMES MADISON: The last thing this new country needs is another Shays’s rebellion. We needed to vaguely define this broad power to prevent anarchy, and a repeat of the Articles of Confederation. Thomas wishes to literally read the clause, but it should not be read that way. The clause reflects compromise over an ideological question of sovereignty.
This was as Hall rightly says in C, a “Rude awakening to the realities of the war that prompted a re-evaluation of the nation’s commitment.” This is similar to Source A in the way that it refuses to focus on the statistics of the offensive, but look at the consequences of the assault, with the privilege of hindsight. This is what defines this source, what makes it right, that it does not take into account solitary and meaningless numbers but looks at the opinion of the people affected, be it in the public or government officials. It clearly presents the Tet for what it was, a larger reverse for the USA. It contradicts D as well, but C is right, the Americans had been exposed and this decreased the credibility of themselves, the South Vietnamese government and made people question the capitalist system. General Giap sums it up best when he states
“The United States have always protested against the doctrine of international law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-governing state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people. The United States cannot act upon the ancient heresy that might makes right.” ( Halsall, 1997) They felt that the American Consitution and Declaration of Independence were being violated. The outcome of this policy took with it into the 20th century a more expanded foreign trade policy. American imperialism led to the overseas empire being both territorial and commercial.