Essay On Just War Theory

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.”

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).

The first and most important requirement being “just cause” is when a country may declare a war only for the right reasons. When a country feels that they are under aggression by another

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

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

This policy was eventually known as the Bush Doctrine. It was used to indicate a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests. The United States-led invasion of Iraq represents the first application of the new national security policy. The Bush Doctrine relies on three stands, unrivaled military supremacy, the concept of preemptive or preventive war, and a willingness to act unilaterally if multilateral cooperation cannot be

Furthermore, ‘a supreme emergency exists when our deepest values and our collective survival are in imminent danger (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009).Walzer holds that Great Britain was facing such a supreme emergency during a certain period of World War II when it was under attack from Nazi Germany, which constituted an ‘evil objectified in the world’’ (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009). Walzer holds that, at least in the first years of the war while Germany was undefeated, the situation was a supreme emergency because a German victory would have constituted an ultimate threat to Britain. However, Walzer claims that after it became clear that Germany could no longer win the war, there no longer was a supreme emergency (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009).In a supreme emergency situation, it is morally permissible to directly and intentionally target and kill innocents, or non-combatants’ (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009). In Walzer’s example, it was justified to bomb residential areas of German cities, thus directly targeting the civilian population’ (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009).

In this essay I am going to explain my opinion on the fight against Isis and America’s involvement in the attacks. I believe that America is doing the right thing by getting involved and trying to stop Isis from attacking America and all of the other countries, somebody has to do something to try and stop the reign of terror. One of the three articles that I read was “To defeat Isis, it must be an American fight”. In the article it states that “It is an American fight, one that will not succeed without American leadership” which I believe is true the president we have right now are not doing a very good job leading America, he believes that letting the refugees is helping them, which it is but he is also letting in the bad guys with the

W. Bush, announced that the U.S. would deploy forces in a defensive operation to protect Saudi Arabia. Operation Desert Shield began. Desert Shield initiated a dramatic increase of U.S. troops and resources in the Gulf region and along the Saudi Arabia border in preparation of Iraqi forces striking the Saudis. On November 29, the United Nations Security Council gave Iraq the deadline of midnight January 16, 1991 to leave Kuwait or face forcible removal by any means necessary.

This belief was heightened after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, which America linked directly back to Islamic forces, implying that the 9/11 attack was done in spite of the US. Furthermore, this statement is representative of the pro-war American government that unleashed themselves upon Iraq in 2001. It gives the perspective of the American government and their belief that the Iraqi war was justified, in that it was done in self-defence and for the wellbeing of America. This directly opposes the view that their attack and invasion of the country was for their own political and economic gain. Furthermore, it seems that America’s intervention has led to a crumbling among both the economic and political aspect of Iraqi civilisation despite the immense gain America had upon