Argument Analysis Paper. Currently, The World Is In Disagreement

Invading Iraq was—and remains—a highly debated and controversial decision within both world politics and the academic disciplines of politics and international relations. With a growing number of deaths, rising tensions in the Middle East, and a failure to find any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the voices condemning the Bush administration have been increasing ever since the decision to go to war was announced. While many scholars have traditionally argued against the war, this paper will argue that the Iraq War can be justified.

Australian multi-millionaire and property mogul Tim Gurner made a controversial claim on the Australian television show 60 Minutes, that purchasing avocado toast may be one of the reasons why millennials cannot afford a house.

President Obama attempts to gain the support of the Conservative population through a more logical approach, detailing the potential consequences of his actions or lack thereof to our nation 's credibility. He begins his appeal to the Right with a warning that “[dictators] depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory”. This means that if were to do nothing, as Assad hopes, he will likely attack more and commit more war crimes. With more war crimes, President Obama points out that it “is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security”. Because American conservatives are traditionally more isolationist, they are less likely to agree with President Obama 's plea to intervene. Though, he argues if we let Assad continue, we will likely be threatening our own safety. The reason it would threaten our national safety, President Obama says, is that “as the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them”. The

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

Clinton, Bill. "U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq Are Justified." The Middle East. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Document URL

Instead of the Beck and Charles telling a story of a significant person to make a point the Authors discussed the original argument for the United States Constitution. The argument was originally written by the federalists in the late 18th century. These historical documents are commonly referred to as the federalist papers. Beck and Charles go over seven different topics and arguments discussed in the federalist papers.

On July 27, 2004, Barack Obama delivered a keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that catapulted him onto the national stage and decidedly set in motion the rest of his political career. In it, Obama addresses controversial topics while simultaneously maintaining an underlying theme of collaboration and common experiences. His arguments can be comprehensively analyzed following the Toulmin model of argumentation. This model consists primarily of a claim, which is the assertion the rhetor attempts to prove, supporting evidence for the claim, and a warrant connecting the evidence to the claim. Secondary elements of this model include backing supporting the warrant, the

Within the last couple of decades, technology has become a huge part in everyone’s daily lives. Everyday we look at our phone almost every five minutes and when we get home we all hop on some other form of technology such as our computers or televisions. However, this is almost exactly what Aldous Huxley and Neil Postman fear. There are some truths and some falsehoods to the statements that Postman proposed such as the idea that we will begin to enjoy our oppression, we will be ruled by the very things that we love, and that we will eventually be thrown so many lies that we will seize to know what the truth is and we will be exploring both sides of these assertions.

The author of this article is able to combine the use of a rhetorical situation, arguments and rhetorical appeals to effectively persuade and inform the audience. The setting of the article allows the information provided to hold significance since foreign policy is a key section of a candidates plans. The setting also successfully informs voters factually in a non-partisan manner. The medium in which the article was published is selective and cuts off audience who do not have access to the internet, however the print version is able to mend this fault. The author’s informative tone successfully preserves the formality of the article and educates readers without any distractions. The persona of the author provides confidence in readers searching for a bipartisan view on the Syrian conflict. The authors tone and persona together convince readers that the Syrian conflict is essential to be informed about. The background of the author, Max Fisher, is assuring to the reader due to the fact that he is experienced in writing about major world events. The

While the comments on his dog's passing were touching condolences his reviews on his previous column were defensive and bluntly inconsiderate. After providing evidence of his multiple reviews, Kristof reasons with his readers and provides rhetorical questions to support his rational. For example, “Would it have been wrong during the Holocaust to try to bomb the gas chambers at Auschwitz? Was President Bill Clinton wrong to intervene in Kosovo to avert potential genocide there? For that matter, was President Obama wrong two years ago when he ordered airstrikes near Mount Sinjar on the Iraq-Syria border, apparently averting genocidal massacres of Yazidi there?” Kristof uses theses questions to his advantage to persuade his readers into seeing the obvious absurdity of the realities/suggestions. He also includes the successful results of various disasters that occurred after receiving help to prove that Syria and its people are worth paying attention to and

Syrian Governmental Problems and Refugees: In “For Those Who Remain in Syria, Daily Life is a Nightmare” (2015), Maher Samaan asserts that the Syrian government is creating more chaos for their country than the actual insurgent groups are. Samaan illustrates his view of the Syrian government (they are doing a terrible job of keeping their citizens safe) by citing statistics that illuminate how the governmental air strikes are causing significantly more deaths than the terrorist groups they are supposedly fighting, accomplishing practically nothing aside from killing their own citizens. The examples he gives help to demonstrate the gravity of the situation and provide a sense of reality to his claims.

As of recent, there is an ongoing debate over the response of the Obama administration related to the events occurring in Syria and the potential violation by the Syrian government of customary international law and relevant treaties and conventions in the use of chemical weapons against its own people. The conflict itself has history which is required to be thoroughly examined before conclusions can be placed and actions are to be carried out. The Syrian Civil War has not only affected the lives of Syria’s citizens but has becoming a pressing issue in direct international relations between countries like Russia and the United States. Obama’s administration has their own response to the crisis at hand and believes that a military strike is a fully legal move to make given the situation present at hand. According to the evidence, it would seem possible that a violation has not occurred and that the threat by Obama’s administration to use force in the Syrian crisis stands on illegitimate grounds because the proceedings are done by Syrian government on their own grounds. However the atrocious actions committed by the Assad regime could in fact provide legality to military intervention by the United States. Finally, the focus will be to determine whether chemical weapons are in fact the sole factor for international intervention.

In this essay’s scope, the Syrian war has been analyzed using the just war theory. The just war theory highlights situations where waging a war can be justifiable and also provides guidelines on how a war should be fought. In as much as the theory recognizes the need to protect innocent human life even when it involves the use of force, the theory puts in place several principles that need to be met to qualify a war as being just. As for the Syrian situation, the bone of contention is whether the proposed US military intervention is justifiable or not. Those who are for a US military intervention observe that the enormity of the massacre in Syria justifies an external intervention. They point out that an intervention would protect further loss of innocent human life. Those against such a move point out some guidelines that have not been met to merit such an intervention as a just

The “just cause criterion is central in the “just war” doctrine. When assessing the sufficient “just cause” reasons the principle of self-defence is undoubtedly tolerable. It can be extended to the reason of assisting aid to victims of oppression or external threat (Moseley n.d.). Following this principle, the mass murder of the Syrian civilians by the government forces that reached nearly 40000 (Aloyo 2014) create a justified cause for the USA and the international community in general. However, in the case of Syria using forces against the aggression as a whole will be an impossible task, as both parties