Why Is War Necessary?

attitude....Complete destruction of Poland is the military aim. To be fast is the main thing.

There are many reasons why countries go to war. One country may want to go to war to take revenge on something that another country or countries did to them. Germany, for example, wanted to take revenge on the rest of the European nations after they all unanimously agreed that the responsibility for the First World War should be laid upon Germany. Countries also go to war for another reason, territorial expansion. The crusades were a good example of this because even though they started out a holy war, they converted into wars that focused on expanding borders. There are many other reasons why wars start, but revenge and land expansion are the two greatest ones.

From being held as honorable and in high regards in ancient Greece, to being determined as unnecessary and violent by the younger generation during the Vietnam war, it is one trait of man that never fully rescinds into history. It has always been a part of our past, and as the Encyclopedia of National Security states about Clausewitz' suggestion in “On War”, “War is a purely rational act of state policy and a legitimate means to achieve a state's interests.” It can be looked at as a necessary evil, where even though it is not mandatory to achieve one's purpose, it certainly is a option, and tends to be a primary one when all else fails. After the 9/11 attacks, tension was countrywide as to how to combat those whose did this appalling act. Before declaring war, President George Bush demanded the Taliban not only give up Bin Laden, since they gave him sanctuary in Afghanistan, but to also to cease all terrorist training organizations. When both requests were denied, the President saw no other option, and declared war. There was praise and criticism heard everywhere, showing that though war is always an option, it is not a unanimous

1. "The French and Indian (1754–1763), known as the Seven Years’ War in Europe, proved to be the decisive contest between Britain and France in America"(U.S History, 110). Great Britain had an enormous amount of things to celebrate over after the war was finally over. Morale was high but, " Despite the celebratory mood, the victory over France also produced major problems within the British Empire, problems that would have serious consequences for British colonists in the Americas"(U.S History, 120). The enormous obligation the war produced at home, nonetheless, turned out to be the most difficult issue confronting Great Britain. " Parliament had to find ways to raise revenue to pay off the crippling debt from the war. Everyone would have

Although wars cause much devastation in countries even in the world, the Just War Theory may be applied to determine whether or not a war was justly distributed through particular principles and conditions. Led by the United States in Iraq, the Gulf War caused much controversy and tension between nations. Not only did it left a scar on foreign policy but the citizens of Iraq were greatly affected. Through Thomas Aquinas Just War Theory principles and Catholic teachings, the Iraq war can be proven to be an unjust conflict due to a large number of casualties, expensive costs, and unsuccessful turnabout.

President Bush invaded Iraq (going against the wishes of many other countries) based off of the thought that they had nuclear weapons and were planning to give them to terrorists, but he was mistaken. Even though the war may have been fought eventually either way, the fact that they were wrong about the main reason for the strike is worrisome. Preemptive strikes should only be carried out when countries have undeniable, hard proof that an enemy is going to stage a powerful attack immediately. In this part in the fragile study of war ethics, no matter what the fight is about, the end must always justify the means. Because the preemptive strike was not just, I do not fully believe that the Iraq War was just, especially with the escalations in violence as it went on. As for the Afghanistan War, it is harder for me to decide whether or not it is just. We initially officially attacked because of the September 11, 2001 attack, but our actions during the war (such as the large number of civilian deaths, the abuse against Afghans, and the slow reconstruction efforts) were decidedly not just. It is more difficult to decide which of these conflicts are the most honorable. I do believe that both of these wars had a more just cause than the Vietnam War, because we actually had significant reasons to start thee conflicts, not just some need to contain and control another country. I do not, however, believe we had just authority. In fact, I believe that the “levels” of just authority are about the same when it comes to these three conflicts. The just intention is a bit harder to figure out as well, because even though the combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been formally ended, there are still thousands of troops in both countries. Although the United States has technically completed our original mission, we are

Imagine a war. It doesn’t matter which war, because all of them have several things in common. Wars are very costly. They have cost thousands to millions of dollars in equipment, and all wars have cost hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives, both in the military and in the innocent population. Those who do survive are scarred, sometimes physically, mentally, and emotionally. Many retired soldiers suffer from PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as severe or fatal injuries. There are very, very few who would want to go to war, but sometimes, war is necessary. The question is: when is military force justified? Military force is justified when the safety of our population is threatened, when one of our allies is threatened, and when other, more peaceful attempts have been ineffective.

The framers split authority regarding matters of war-making between the president (commander in chief) and Congress (declaring war). will anyone seriously believe that they'd have approved of the manager department waging years-long wars while not the express approval of the legislature? nonetheless the benefits accruing to any president -- the unitary nature of the workplace, the swift action that solely he will soak up a responsive world, his dominance of the televised public forum -- have created AN emperor the maximum amount as a president. The constitutional balance of shared war-making should be fixed.

One position Zinn presents is that war is actually good for a nation. This isn’t something I had really ever considered before. I’ve always thought of war as a terrible divide in humanity; it has no good outcomes. Rather, it only causes pain, loss, and death. However, after reading some of Zinn’s ideas, I can see how war could possible help strengthen a nation.

The concept of “just war” is built on the assumption that war is bad and should be avoided, but there also may be times when warfare is justified. Just war theories usually address two main areas: First, under what conditions is it right to go to war? Second, is there a moral way to conduct a war?

Why is there war? Why is there racism? Why must almost all disputes be solved via violence? Why, why, why. It is in human nature to question, and to be curious. As well as abhorring anything that is different from what society defines as “normal”. Society abhors anything unusual. Honestly, many things puzzle me, as well as the rest of the human race for the most part. Whether it be the existence of paranormal entities, which has boggled the world for millennia, or the meaning of life. Some things will remain unanswered, while for some the answer might be closer than humanity thinks. Forrest Gump sums up life in one short quote, “Life is like a box of chocolates.” You don’t know what you’ll get, until you try it. If only humanity could work

Through the knowledge that I have after reading the other explanations given, I believe the reason we have wars is because they are a way of making the people in the community have a better and safer life. The example that I have to explain this is the war that occurred after September 11th. People in the United States needed reassurance that they were safe from future attacks. Instead of living in constant fear that something else as terrible as the attacks on the World Trade Center could happen again, the war on terrorism occurred. The war had a way of bringing people together to fight against one common cause which was to have a safer life. Another example is when there are wars over pieces of land. The land that the people want is a way

In between the timeline of World War One and World War Two, political leaders, states, and nations were fighting against each other with and without the usage of weapons. The ideology of great philosophers, and raising leaders, such as: Herbert Spencer, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Great Britain, and Russia brought civil wars and battles during the small timeframe between world wars. Before we go into depth on the one 30-year war, we begin with the settings of this one-30 year war. In the beginning of the 19th century, European powerhouses, France and Russia, obtained the same equal power. At the same period, Germany’s industry began to grow tremendously which brought rival, Britain. Germany’s economics in industrial were growing due to the exports of heavy materials, and beneficially to politicians running the state. The economic growth of Germany lead them to create the Triple Alliance in 1882. The reason for this secret agreement between Germany, Austria-Hungry, and Italy was because Germany felt that its economic growth would lead to war with their rivals. In response to the Triple Alliance 1882, the Triple Entente of 1894 was created by France, Russia, and Great Britain. Nevertheless, Germany was thinking in advanced, and planed the Schlieffen. A plan that Germany created, if war would to break out, to attack France and then Great Britain excluding Russia. On June 28th 1914, the Archduke

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).

For the utmost part people believe war is necessary in our world. After 9/11, several people felt like war will prevent another tragedy from occurring. I have no doubt that combat is keeping the people of the United States free with all the rights they are entailed in the Constitution. Due to war, it is preventing the terrorist from taking more American lives. If no conflicts had ever happened, then the United States would still be under Britain’s authority. However, by having the battle, that is when the Thirteen Colonies began. The killing of innocent people will always be wrong, on the other hand for us to remain free it must be done. The United States cannot let us, the people, be walked all over by another country. There are a number of pros to fighting, such as, economic growth and technical advancements. There are also cons to warfare, such as, the obvious numerous amount of casualties, hatred and propaganda, and the environmental damage.