¶ … Roxane, Justin, and Patrick sounds like a sensible one, but the simple fact is that Roxane's position is insane, Justin's position is out-of-touch with the reality of twenty-first century warfare, and Patrick offers a traditional pacisism in the mold of Gandhi. I hope to demonstrate that Michael Walzer's conclusion on the justice of warfare -- that it is almost impossible to justify -- it is expensive -- runs double for the peacetime attack.
Roxane's kneejerk jingoism is entirely devoid of merit. The dictator of country Z. has a terrible reputation because he slaughters civilians and has threatened to invade neighboring states -- Roxanne's proposed solution is that the U.S. should actually invade the far-away state of Z, and slaughter their civilians. To pretend that there is any ethical consistency in Roxanne's suggestion here is nonsense. Her notion that Japan became a peaceful and stable ally of the U.S. because it had been attacked immediately with massive force is a travesty of the historical record. For a start, Japan attacked the U.S. directly, offering a casus belli; Z. did not. Second, the war against Japan actually threatened to drag on even longer than it did (since the Japanese hoped to conclude the conflict if not with victory than with negotiated terms short of unconditional surrender) and was only concluded by the use of newly-developed atomic weaponry which demonstrated that Japan could be rendered uninhabitable if it failed to surrender. Finally the notion that Japan became a friend and ally as a result of the forceful aggression of America's first attack against them is disingenuous as best: the development of the Axis powers in WW2 into American allies or client states was assisted more by a postwar economic policy (of which the Marshall Plan is perhaps the most famous example) than by the conduct of the war itself.
This last point reminds us of the merits of Patrick's pacifism. His emphasis on nonviolent alternatives will be derided by anyone who thinks that diplomacy is the only nonviolent alternative....
War on Terror Although the rhetoric on the War on Terror has subsided somewhat since Bush left office, terrorism itself remains an unfortunate reality around the world. The War on Terror was largely a propaganda machine, which perpetuated a cultural climate of fear. As Coaty points out in Understanding the War on Terror, fear-mongering is destructive rhetoric. In the end, too much fear-driven crisis leads to uninformed and ill-devised political strategies.
In fact, Taylor did not only address abnormal psychology on an individual scale, but also discussed how it informs cultural ideals and norms. Taylor spoke about terrorism and how a culture of terrorism impacts the people in the culture. In many ways, what he described about those who join terrorist organizations mirrors what I already know about people in bad neighborhoods who join gangs. They are not necessarily bad people,
Speech by President Bush Prospective Deliberative Speech to the Republican National Convention in July, Directed on Television to the American Nation as a Whole Nods, smiles, acknowledges audience) My fellow Americans, this November every one of you will be faced with a seemingly simple choice, but a choice that will affect this entire nation's future -- should you vote to change the current administration and vote democratic? Or should you vote Republican and
break out of war in Afghanistan and Iraq propelled alarming forecasts about its most likely psychiatric effects. The chief of recuperation or readjustment therapy services at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) asserted that as high as 30% of soldiers deployed to Iraq may establish posttraumatic tension ailment (PTSD) (Dentzer, 2003), a disorder that can arise following experience of gruesome, dangerous occasions, such as battle, natural catastrophes, and rape.
" (Campo, PAGE) Such statements remind historians of colonialism, where invaders believed that their society was superior to the culture they were supplanting, while reaping significant financial rewards for doing so. However, the United States has never claimed financial gain. The real criticism of this war is the rush to get there. The United States planned to solve the Iraqi war with force of arms even while the U.N. was
Kennedy recognizes the need to establish a bond with all the South American leaders, thereby isolating Chavez-Chavez politically as ineffective leader in South America. Kennedy perceived the Third World in terms of the "national military establishment," and vulnerable to the manipulations of the Soviet Union (Schwab, Orrin, 1998, 1). Kennedy had already gone around with Cuba, and did not wish to repeat his mistakes in Venezuela, but he also
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now