Conversely, internationalists believed that the United States had a moral duty to intervene in the war and believed that by aiding Great Britain in her time of need the United States might avoid direct involvement in the conflict. The first point
War propaganda is created to exploit the publics attitude and their view towards war. This piece of war propaganda was designed to captivate anyone who looks at it and make them reflect on the war. It evokes emotion towards the issue without creating a verbal discussion and influences people to sympathize with what they the artists illustrate in this case, those fighting for Iraq. This specific piece is called War propaganda by Marc Pageau. In 2003 the United States president George W. Bush along with the United Kingdoms prime minister Tony Blair united to disarm Iraq of weapons, end Saddam Hussein’s sustenance for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.
The Hurt Locker shows the madness, insanity, and total recklessness of soldiers trapped in the downward spiral of the Iraq war. The film itself does not take on a political stance. Kathryn Bigelow decided against the spoon-fed political message of previous “War on Terror” films of the time, leaving out the typical war ideology, and chose to focus on a specific team of soldiers. The Hurt Locker, like all film according to Cormolli and Narboni, is inherently political. “Film is part of the economic system, it is also part of the ideological system.” To determine the true ideology of the Hurt Locker and where it fits within Cormolli and Narboni's film categories, one must first understand what ideology means.
What exactly these boundaries are, and how to enforce them, is a source of controversy. Proponents of Just War Theory, such as John Rawls, believe that “in the conduct of war, a democratic society must carefully distinguish three groups: the states’ leaders and officials, its soldiers, and its civilian population” (Rawls 114), and there exist international laws and statues that provide heavy protection to civilians during wartime. As a result of this human intuition to fight fair, civilians have certain moral rights during wartime, despite any uncertainty around the logistics of these moral rights. The intentional killing of innocents during wartime violates these rights and oversteps the moral boundaries of
Centuries later, Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) developed further the concept of just war. He asserted that three things were necessary for a war to be just: (1) The one declaring war must be a rightful sovereign, a legitimate leader; (2) The nation being attacked must deserve it because of some serious fault or injustice; and (3) The nation doing the attacking must have a good intention such as advancing good or stopping evil. More modern treatments of just war have included the ideas that war must be the last resort after all other options have failed, and the means of prosecuting the war must be proportional to the offence of the nation deserving attack.
He believed that war was not only compatible with but was sometimes required by all three forms of law: natural law, nations (international law) and divine law. He said “where judicial settlement fails, war begins” (De Jure Belli ac Pacis. II.1.2.1) Grotius believed that war was less to do with divine law, and more to do with international law (civil law). As such, positivism should be considered in deciding the constituents of a just war. His philosophical underpinning was that divine law should be omitted from the jus ad bellum process.
This presents the first large-scale problem within this event; if a country is doing something right, why should they hide it? It could be argued that a national security risk is present, but the threat would have been long gone at this point in time, so what exactly could be the point of covering such involvement in the coup? For example, the United States does claim involvement in the coup of Saddam Hussein, so it cannot be because it was a coup. However, there is a difference between Salvadore Allende and Saddam Hussein, the same difference between the Bosnian Conflict and the coup of Salvadore Allende. The coup of Saddam Hussein and involvement in
Bernhardi believes war creates growth and innovation for nations while James argues that if war can be avoided then it should be. In a way they both agree that war cannot be done away with completely due to human nature and would only not exist in a utopian society for William James. To finish up on their perspectives of war it wraps around to Bernhardi advocating that war in the right situations is important to advance a nation while William James would rather stay out of war until it is absolutely necessary. After reading and writing this report, both of these authors provide solid points that I personally believe in but Bernhardi’s ideas are more inline with mine. All in all war is a controversial topic with multiple sides all forming their own solutions but with Bernhardi and William James we can see two opposite sides to find compromise in
In the fourth line of America, Ginsberg directly addresses a question towards questioning, ‘when we will end the human war’. The following line Ginsberg insults America by saying, ‘Go fuck yourself with your atom bomb’. He first utilizes a rhetorical question that is posed towards the American people to reflect upon the effect of constantly resorting to war in terms of human cost. In the rhetorical question, the poet utilizes words such as ‘we’ and ‘human’ which indicates that perhaps he was trying focus on the human aspect of war and the fact that war need not necessarily against some opposition as it instead wars can also happen within the mind of human being. In the