To Subdue an Enemy Interpretation is a key concept in living a civil lifestyle and governing a civil country. Abraham Lincoln had many interpretations that were objected that directly a country fighting a civil war. These actions, though controversial were key stepping stones in restructuring a nation that had fallen apart. Lincoln, now viewed as the “Great Emancipator”, was not always viewed as so in the eyes of his fellow countrymen. Many of his decisions led to uproar, but one in the end set the ground for the United States as we know it today.
“Fighting for our lives” the title of the first chapter in the book The Argument Culture by Deborah Tanner is an apt way to describe the subject of this paper. Our culture has programmed us to take an adversarial approach in all forms of discourse with the need to win as the ultimate goal. This attitude can have a huge impact on our everyday lives. Interacting in this manner can literally kill a relationship. Many couples argue to win but over the long term this often results in a breakup.
Furthermore, militarization in the area is not meant as an act of aggression but merely effective enforcement, as sovereign countries have the right to protect their land; the military manifestation and coast guard is present for policing purpose, they have a similar role to the RCMP on mainland. Ullman goes on to argue that this prizefight for resources will pose further problems not only for the United States but also the international community (Ullman, 1983, 141). This struggle for resources will be tested even further as our population continues to grow rapidly. Ullman predicts that all these factors will take a turn for the worse in a terrible chain of events (Ullman, 1983, 141-142). Overpopulation will quickly take over government agendas as they struggle to allocate resources; this will be the dawning of revolutions.
Moreover, due to the change of the environments is constantly, creatures forced to changed constantly as well; finally, the ability of adaption causes creatures evolved. As a consequence, nature would select the species that qualified. On the other hand, the philosophy of “Natural Selection” is the basement of many philosophies; for instance, the Social Darwinism. The philosophy of social Darwinism explains the rules of the human society, which is for those people who could adapt the environment, they would be selected and become success. Inversely, for those people who could not adapt the environment, they would be obsoleted and loss the competition.
The waging war between good and evil has continued on since the beginning of the creation of human beings. It perhaps is the essence of human nature to waver between good and evil. People eventually choose to be one over the other, and most commonly choose to be good. But, as a person, one cannot be perfectly good all the time, and this leads to the common struggle all humans face. It is wonderfully depicted and exemplified in Les Misèrables by Victor Hugo.
Death is the most aggressive end that a trace can have and it can be inexplicable. Why did he die? Why now? Even though humanity knows that it is impossible to find a reason for it other than the medical one, it will always look for it. Although the logic understands it, the heart does not want to do it.
Militarism led to problems because every country had confidence that its new technological weaponry and troop count could defeat any other country, which led to a severe lack of negotiations. And the only way to find out whose military is better, is to fight. Another key factor that played a role in World War I was alliances. Alliances caused them to be more “cocky” towards each other because they knew if they went to war they had someone behind there back. This can be compared to as a domino effect.
These are two ideas that turned to war and could have been solved without force. These wars are unnecessary and need to be prevented and or stopped to make the world a better place and it would also make peace again. Peace is the thing we need to shoot for but many need to understand the reason why. Then again these wars are unwinnable because a conclusion will not be reached no matter how hard we try. The only way we can stop it is by being smart about our future decisions and hope to god that whatever decisions get made don’t ruin our country’s fate
With the Balance of Power destabilising, which, according to Thucydides, is the only means to achieve peace, the growth of power in Athens caused the Spartans to feel more and more insecure and thus they started to prepare to defend themselves. This very much reflects the realist point of view, as it argues that without a Balance of Power there can be no peace and it also shows how easily the balance can be dis-rupted so that it causes a war. Thucydides that war may be justified on grounds of pursuit of the national interest and in order to achieve peace at last. However, there are differences as to what is a ‘legitimate’ national interest. Where for political realism everything that is in the interest of the state and can be achieved by
It has hurt our credibility across the world and caused a loss of faith in government by its citizens. Although the necessity of the war is argued by many, it is only done in an analysis of its occurrence. Had it not happened and the world possibly fell under Communism, then we would be arguing the exact opposite. The United States did what it felt it had to do at the time, given the information it had. To go to war in Vietnam was a risk the US felt it had to take in order to contain Communism, thus securing its economic prosperity and worldwide dominance.