Is it possible for any good to come from war or loss of lives? There are always casualties of war including some innocent lives that just get caught in the midst of assault. A war is a large scale combat involving hundreds to thousands of soldiers fighting for their country, freedoms, religious liberty. Of course that means war has a bigger impact and must be carefully considered and justified before attempted. Massacres differ greatly from war simply because they have no good purpose other than to destroy life. They are always senseless hate crimes against innocent human beings intended only to strike fear and devastation into others. The world has been at war for centuries from disagreements which should be expected among countries and nations due to different cultures, values, and beliefs. No one has the right to decide that killing is justified.
Politicians and leaders of nations may claim that war is necessary for a variety of reasons. Protecting land boundaries, power and control, and the right to live and practice religion are some of the most common reasons why war may take place. At least there are specific reasons for war. Soldiers know what they are fighting for and they believe in it enough to do so rather than be imprisoned or exiled. A “just war” means that there needs to be a legitimate reason that justifies it, and that there is no other way to resolve the conflict. Wars usually come about between whole nations or groups of people that are fighting for a
War-- a horrific way of justifying our actions and the innocent lives that have been lost, but on the other hand has resolved some of the greatest conflicts in history. Not every issue ever raised in this world is resolved through negotiation and discussion, rather sometimes war becomes a necessity for countries to settle disputes. War is a part of how a society strengthens itself politically, socially, and economically however, ultimately it becomes a country’s abusive use of power.
Thus in conclusion, the drafting of young American men by the American government and the subsequent reaction of draft protests, added to the chaotic situation the Policy makers were facing due to the public disorder created, but at the same time also evidenced the limitations of the student’s power and ability to truly gain significant public support and be taken seriously. Such limitations will reoccur later and mark one of the reasons why the student’s movement was not fully responsible for the withdrawal of American troops in 1975.
A total war is a conflict which involves bringing together resources; this includes both industrial and military resources aiming at having an output that the enemy will not overcome at all (Castellano, 2016). The biggest difference that exists between a total war and a normal war is that there is really zero difference between those fighting in the same war and the civilians in this period; all these people are considered an enemy.
Almost 70 years has being passed since the last world war was declared its end. These days, it is said that if the third world war is occurred in the current world, it should be a total warfare with nuclear weapons (Gunn, 2004:70). In general the World War II (WWII) is often considered as a case of total war; now, there can be a question about the existence of total war in the world history.
War is a scandalous topic where peoples’ views differ as to what war is. Some people see it as pure evil and wicked while others think that it is brave and noble of what soldiers do. Looking at poems which had been written by people affected by war help show the messages which are portrayed. The two sets of poems which show different views of war as well as some similarities are “the Charge of the Light Brigade” by Alfred Lord Tennyson, “To Lucasta, on Going to the Wars” by Richard Lovelace and “Dulce Et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen, “The Song of the Mud” by Mary Borden. Both these poets use linguistic devices to convince the reader of their view of what the war is. Tennyson and Lovelace show how war is worthy
Even though the United States emerged as a clear victor of World War I, many Americans after the war felt that their involvement in the conflict had been a mistake (Markus Schoof, “The American Experience During World War II,” slide 3). This belief, however, did not deter the country from engaging in many other international affairs in the future, most importantly the WWII and the Cold War. Right from the Manifest Destiny, which led to expand its empire at home and abroad, to the World War I, the country had come a long way from being somewhat a lonely-land to a global superpower of the 20th century. Its influence in the international arena grew unprecedently after its commitment to the World War II, and like they say, the rest is history. If the WWII was a resounding success to the American legacy, what followed, the Cold War, put many implications on the American diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and to the world. Although the rising Fascism in Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor drove the U.S. to enter the WWII, historians over the years have laid equal blames on both nations for starting the Cold War. These two events helped in shaping up many domestic and foreign policies for the U.S.
The damage of wars is way too much that it should never happen under any circumstance. No one should ever initiate a war and claim it justified. Let’s see why war should not be justified.
Battle of Long Island- Lord North- sent General William Howe to NYC to take over the Hudson so that the southern
Aristotle once said “we make war that we may live in peace.” That is true. All wars have been fought because people feel that peace has been lost, and they want to obtain it. Whether it be about land, rights, religion, or government; people fight for peace. Edwin Starr’s song lyrics are wrong, because war can be beneficial. The benefits to war are that it frees people from oppression and gives the country and soldiers a unifying ideology and a sense of national pride.
Throughout history, war has always been described as an atrocity and an unnecessary reason for the loss of life. This is not the case. War is necessary for the survival of the economy, the sustainability of non-renewable resources, and the progression of inventions.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace and safety. The just war can only be waged as a last resort requiring that all reasonable non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war can be just when it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. An array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare.
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
“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper
There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.
War is a seen by those who are against it as the most devastating and dreaded type of human interaction ADDIN EN.CITE Hedges2003517Hedges (2003)5175176Hedges, C.War is a force that gives us meaning2003Gütersloh, GermanyRandom House9781400034635http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_4" o "Hedges, 2003 #517" Hedges (2003). In the society, we leave in, discussions about war are held and preparations for warfare are a normal day-to-day occurrence. Proponents of war argue that nations get a meaning from war and not just carnage and destruction in it way. ADDIN EN.CITE Hedges2003517Hedges (2003)5175176Hedges, C.War is a force that gives us meaning2003Gütersloh, GermanyRandom House9781400034635http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_4" o "Hedges, 2003 #517" Hedges (2003) argues that war gives life a meaning and purpose there by giving people a reason to leave. According to Hedges, with war an excitement hangs in the air. War provides a cause and a resolve to a country as it allows its citizens to be noble ADDIN EN.CITE Hedges2003517(Hedges, 2003)5175176Hedges, C.War is a force that gives us meaning2003Gütersloh, GermanyRandom House9781400034635http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C( HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_4" o "Hedges, 2003 #517" Hedges, 2003).