Analysis: Why The US Should Step In Threats Of War

I think the central idea of “From War To America” by Kristen Lewis is that hope is stronger than fear. I think this because in the text it says, “...Six million Syrians have lost their homes...”. This is a time that you need hope and not fear because you have lost the little you have and the place you grew up in. Another example where you need hope more than fear is, “ ...4 million people at risk of starvation…”, this text shows that if the people of Syria lost hope they would have died and let fear get the best of them. One last example of how hope is stronger than fear is, “Bullets whizzed around them. They ducked behind a wall to catch their breath.” This shows that if they would have let fear get the best of them, they would have been in

Over the course of history, the United States has a reputation of getting involved with other nations to sort out disputes, arguments, conflicts, wars, etc. One specific example of U.S. Military Involvement is the 1980 El Salvador Civil War. The El Salvador Civil War was a civil war that lasted from 1980 to about 1992. The war slowly arose due to little uprisings in society, promises to improve economy and lifestyles that were never fulfilled, and the push of communism beliefs onto the people who didn’t believe in them. The U.S. Military would not get involved unless their is a violation of human rights, or if mankind is being put into harm's way. The U.S. involved themselves in the Civil War of El Salvador because they had enough evidence and support for specific claims, had the appropriate authority, and fought for an outcome that suited the needs of humanity.

Take France for instance, France has been having several economic and governmental issues lately, but none of those problems have affected us in any way. If countries don't interfere with our affairs, we should not interfere with theirs. Unless the ask for help we should deliver because not only it is the Christian thing to do, it shows these countries that we care and we are willing to help other countries heal and resolve conflicts. For example if they start issues we should stop them. If they terrorize other countries that cannot defend themselves, we should stop them. In addition, if they do anything that could potentially harm America or the rest of the world, we need to interfere. Although we generally aim for peace, we have a right to defend ourselves and any other country who asks us for help in

“Never again!” might be the only international promise U.S. has made globally. Unfortunately, we have broken that promise. Communities and leaders all over the world vowed never again would we let such atrocities like the Holocaust ever happen again. Easier said than done, the US sat back and watched the people of Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia suffer in their own country. Their own leaders strip all of their civil liberties and puts all their lives in danger everyday. Millions and millions of people lose their loved ones, live their lives in terror, and are robbed of the human rights that we, as Americans, are blessed with. The US spends 700 billion on military spending, and we still have not used the power we have for good. We realize how important our freedom is to us, and it important we help other countries when in need.

Throughout American history the U.S has tried to stay out of national disputes but sometimes it is necessary for them to take action. In all the wars ever fought in the world only two have been fought on U.S soil and one of the wars was between our own country(Civil War).

The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy,

George W. Bush agrees with preemptive war, he believes that this is the best approach in seeking balance of power that favors human freedom. In the article "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" Written by himself in 2005, he declares that his mission is to defend peace by fighting terrorist, preserve peace by building good relations among the great powers. Also, continuing the topic of peace by extending later by encouraging free and open societies. How is he going to do this? Bush has himself and the United States of America taken the responsibility to lead building a world that trades in freedom and therefore growing in prosperity. In unison with their allies and their new found cooperation with Russia that is partnering

1) Both Eugene V Debs and Randolph Bourne, thought that the US should not enter WWI in their own opinions. In Document 22-2, Reading the American Past, Eugene V Debs believed that the US shouldn’t enter WWI because he believed that the government and the upper class were the ones who made the decision to enter the war. The lower class, or the majority of the people who fought the war, didn’t have a say whether or not they should enter the war. Another reason why the US shouldn’t go to war is because Eugene saw no problem with the Germans. He stated in the document, “They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a free and self-governing people.” My understanding from this is that we shouldn’t get involved in a war with another nation who has no wrong towards us. It will just create more troubles we have to live with. In Document 125, Voices of Freedom, Randolph Bourne believed that instead of ignoring

There is debate whether larger countries like the United States should go to war with smaller countries. Larger countries should not go to war with smaller countries because wars don’t solve or conclude anything, having a war with a small country is a waste of time and money, and all the violence and conflict in the war shouldn’t be the answer in a dispute.

On the debate of whether America should go to war with ISIS or not. I decided to not chose either or but both. I am only seventeen, and quite frankly I wish the problem would just go away. Regrettably, reality does not work that way. Thus I choose to talk about both sides.

You did an excellent job answering this week’s discussion board question. I agree with you conclusion that cyber-attacks which are performed by nation states can be considered armed attack; however, I believe this for a different reason. When answering this question we must understand when an attack can be categorized as an armed attack. This leads to the United Nation charters which dictate when nations are allowed to go to war and retaliate in response to armed attacks. According to the United Nations Charter 51, 39, and article 2(4) it appears that any attack can be defined as an armed attack if the attack can result in or is capable of resulting in the destruction of property or loss of life. It is also stated in the aforementioned United Nations documents that if an attack which meets this definition threshold does occur, nothing restricts the right of the nation being attacked from resorting to self-defense measures including launching a similar attack against the offending nation. Using the definition of an armed attack as defined by the United Nations it is easy to see how cyber-attacks performed by nation states can be considered to be an armed attack. However, it is important to note that not all cyber-attacks by nation states can be considered an armed

Should the United States enter into military intervention in foreign countries for humanitarian reason? Why? Why not? Under what conditions should the U.S. intervene if at all?

Given that many plants need to be sown and then reaped when fully grown, the metaphorical conceptualization of people as plants may, accordingly, be elaborated to include a reaper, more specifically a conceptualization of death as the Grim Reaper (Lakoff & Turner, 1989, pp. 16, 75):

Yes, war would be allowed in defense of others. For-example when Iraq invaded Kuwait during the Gulf war the U.S. intervenes. The United States has made great strides in building up the operational capacity of its partners by training and equipping troops and mentoring them in the field. This is especially true in the Middle East Regions. Another instance is through the Lend-Lease program, the United States sent some $31 billion worth of supplies (in 1940s dollars) to the United Kingdom over the course of the war. It dates back to the period before the United States entered World War II, when Winston Churchill famously said, "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job." U.S. aid to the Soviet Union during those years exceeded $11 billion, including hundreds of thousands of trucks and thousands of tanks, aircraft, and artillery pieces. Helping other countries better provide for their own

I have to agree that the American nation needs to and these are reasons of why our American government should interfere. It would help to eliminate Iran’s influence in the Arab world. If these ties were eliminated then Iran loses its biggest base of militants in Lebanon. America’s interference could keep the conflict from becoming any larger, providing training and equipment for reliable allies could create a defensive wall against extremist groups hiding out in uncontrolled areas of Syria. Interference could improve relationships with neighboring allies Turkey and Qatar and could end the human-rights disaster within that country; ending the migration of the refugees to America and other countries. Many of America’s allies would love to see