Al-Qaeda, an islamic terrorist group, attacked the Twin Towers of the original World Trade Center on September, 11th, 2001. George Bush was the president at the time, and responded that in order to prevent attacks like that of 9/11 from happening again, we as a nation must take affirmative action. The purpose of this paper will look in-depth of whether the invasion of iraq was to protect American security by eliminating terrorist groups, or, to protect American interests like oil exports, free market system, or simply showing supremacy to the rest of the world. The Bush administration claimed that Saddam Hussein, the former leader, had weapons of mass destruction and therefore an invasion was necessary. In 2003, the U.S congress passed for …show more content…
Just-War theory is a very contentious subject. There are many different versions of what is a “Just” war. Can war really be justified? The concept of morality comes into play now. It definitely has an influential factor found in almost every war that has occurred. Morality or the lack there of, does influence the willing to rage war.It can be used as an excuse, or just be completely disregarded. “Realism” will be very applicable also later on. Frequently one party would say to the other that it has violated their moral codes and that is the reason why they have the right to go to war. Ancient philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, St Augustine, etc. were brilliant of their analysis of rectifying just war. The bright minds of the time would agree that the only time that war is justified is for the pursuit of peace which is frequently obtained through self …show more content…
There are countless examples of how countries are interdependent upon each other. The U.S Invasion of iraq could have been to protect american security. Still, it is highly unlikely that only moral obligation was entirely the cause. As mentioned above in the commodity chain, countries are linked towards each other in a huge string of benefits ranging from War allies, Imports and exports like Importing exotic food, exporting surplus produce. Trade relations between nations promotes economic growth for both parties.The two dominant economic systems in the world are capitalism and socialism. Most societies have varying blends of the two systems. Common hybrids of capitalism and socialism are welfare capitalism and state capitalism. In the current presidential race, a popular democratic presidential nominee, Bernie Sanders, is a candidate whose ideas closely resembles the socialist point of view. Donald Trump, a Republican business magnate who is also running for the presidency, refers to himself as the ideal capitalist. It is a hot debate topic of which system works more efficiently. Common hybrids of capitalism and socialism are welfare capitalism and state capitalism. America would like the rest of the world to be capitalist because we believe the free market is the best chance for an economy to progress. “An system based on private property, personal liberty and freedom to conclude contracts in which the economic
Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.
On September 11, 2001, a series of terrorist attacks were directed for the United States by means of four hijacked planes. Two of which hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one hit the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Department of Defense, and the fourth crashed in a field near Pittsburg after it was meant to hit the White House. The terror spread in the United States and brought concern and fear to the citizens. The impact of these terrorist attacks caused serious and detrimental damages within the country, and their result on the people were enormous; insecurity, helplessness, and susceptibility spread. Especially after the release of a videotape in which Osama Bin Laden, head of Al-Qaeda, admitted that he was responsible for the terrorist attacks. Hence, President George W, Bush declared the “war on terror” against all terrorists in the Arab world, specifically Afghanistan and Iraq. In the following paper, we will be discussing how the war on terror was waged, its effects on the target countries, and how it was perceived by political thinkers, where some saw it as a conspiracy theory against the Arab countries, and others believed the USA was the victim.
The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding
When is it justifiable to engage in war? This question has plagued humanity for centuries and continues to do so. The theory of just war addresses three important questions when considering and dealing with war. These components are when is it justifiable to go to war, the right ways to conduct proceedings during war, and the justification of terminating war. The first part of the theory, originally written in Latin as jus ad bellum, is an important idea within Pope Urban II’s, “Speech at Clermont.” In the 11th century Pope Urban II gave this speech as a call for crusade with the hope of freeing Jerusalem from Muslim control. They eventually succeeded in this mission and took the city of Jerusalem. The “Speech at Clermont,” is now an important source for understanding the justifications of going to war within the medieval just war theory. Throughout the speech Pope Urban II justified the crusade by claiming it was the responsibility of the Christian people to regain the Holy Land, to protect their fellow Christians in the East, and their duty to stop the “disgraceful” and “demon worshipping” Muslim people.
In the weeks immediately after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, the nation watched anxiously as the Bush Administration declared war on terror. Following the invasion of Afghanistan to hunt down those responsible for this horrific incident, the U.S. swiftly changed its priority to invading Iraq and overthrowing its government by capturing its president, Saddam Hussein. In this mission, the U.S. scrambled to find a connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qa’ida. Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, many scholars have focused on the effects of the Iraq War, speculating on the Bush Administration’s motives for the decision. While some within scholarly circles have attributed the invasion
St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.
According to the Just War theory, just war is separated into two domains. First is the motivation behind entering war, and second is the means used during warfare (Hu, 2). The first judgment signifies justice of war, or jus ad bellum that evaluates the terms of a just versus unjust war. The second signifies justice in war, or jus in bello, which essentially measures whether or not the ends justify the means. The relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello are independent of each other, meaning that even if the war passes the judgment of one area, it does not imply justification for the other
The start of the 2003 Iraq War has been debated by many historians. The arguments made by Krebs and Lobasz in their article “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11 - Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq” are very persuasive, as are the arguments made by David Lake in “What Caused the Iraq War?”. These arguments center around the mindset of the Bush Administration, which was fearful of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and eager to use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as rationale for war regardless of clear evidence. Other historians have presented considerable arguments as well, such as Debs and Monteiro, who argue that Iraq’s possibility of having nuclear weapons posed concern to the Bush administration. However, the best rationale for the start of the 2003 Iraq War combines the coercion model put forth by Krebs and Lobasz with the Lake assertion that the post-war rebuilding was not adequately considered. Krebs and Lobasz have the most salient arguments on manipulations of information, with insightful points regarding the motives of the Bush administration. Their points, however, aren’t complete as David Lake contains stronger information in certain parts of the debate. Lake adds important observations about Saddam’s inability to admit to not having nuclear weapons and the U.S.’s failure to estimate the costs of the post-war were key causes for the start of the war.
The war in Iraq lasted for eight years and resulted in many casualties; the cost of the war was tremendous. The reason for the war changed as time went by, starting with getting rid of weapons of mass destruction and then, when the weapons of mass destruction were not found, the name changed to Iraqi Freedom. A debate between two writers that emerged of the war in Iraq shows different perspectives. Writer John Mueller, who holds the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at Ohio State University, makes the case against war on Iraq. Also, writer Brink Lindsey, who is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is in favor of this war. This paper will examine the perspectives as reported by both John Mueller and Brink Lindsey as they argue about the case of the United States invading Iraq. I will conclude from the evidence that the war on Iraq was unnecessary and counterproductive because it increased not decreased the terrorism, refugee crises, cost lives and money without achieving any of its objectives.
Typically, theories of what contitutes a just war include several different criteria. These can be split into categories: those concerned with becoming involved in the war and those that are concerned with actions during the war. More recently there has been the added consideration of what is done following the war (how the triumphant nation treats its opponents once they've been beaten.) (Wikipedia)
On September 11, 2001, America was changed forever. The Islamist group al-Qaeda hijacked four planes and attacked both towers of the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, as well as an attack on the White House which ended with the plane crashing into a field in Pennsylvania. Approximately a month after the attack, President Bush declared the War on Terror. This led to the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. The citizens of the United States had many mixed feelings about whether or not we should even go to war with Iraq; some were hesitant while others agreed with President Bush. In this essay, I will be explaining the arguments for and against the war and then state my own opinion on whether we should have or shouldn’t have gone to war.
September 11, 2001 marks the day of a horrific event that had changed America’s foreign policies and outlook on national security protocol. The response that the U.S. government had towards this act of terror was a response involving the pursuit of justice against those who committed the heinous actions that killed thousands of innocent Americans. The U.S. government wanted to combat our enemies by pursuing national interests in an attempt to stop the occurrences of terrorism that were occurring from the Middle East region. The government would do this by first demanding the surrender of Al-Qaeda leaders including Osama Bin Laden and those that were involved with the planning of the attack. Ground forces were later sent to search for Al-Qaeda members when they did not comply with the demands. The U.S. government had goals of developing a peaceful relation with Middle Eastern governments to help combat Al-Qaeda forces; but, while the U.S. government had intentions of containing a global threat of terrorism, I believe that U.S. government actions have unintentionally unleashed a terrorism outbreak within the Middle East. With intention to stop terrorist acts from taking place, the interests of the U.S. have undoubtedly caused anger among the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and may have caused terrorist organizations to benefit from actions made by the mistakes of our U.S. military.
According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and all pacifistic approaches must be
Just war theory includes the justification of the how and why that wars are fought. The justification of war can be either viewed from a theoretical or historical perspective. The theoretical aspect regards justifying war in an ethical manner and the specific forms that combat may or may not involve. The historical aspect, or the just war tradition," deals with the rules or agreements that have been applied to wars throughout time. Ethics examine institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to inquire about whether aspects of the conventions should be altered.
It justifies when one can wage a war against an unjust enemy and justifies when one can occupy a hostile nation. Lisa Cahill, an American ethicist and professors states; “Just War Theory allows violence under certain conditions but attempts to limit it.” Therefore, the Just War Theory was created in attempt to limit the use of violence. The only time violence is just, according to the Just War Theory, is when a nation state has been violently attacked. In a BBC article, journalist Joe Boyle states that “the idea of just war has thus been shackled to the UN charter’s concept of self-defence.”