The prayer is about solders and hope that they fight well and destroy their enemy 's. In my opinion I agree with the prayer. With a true meaning that we hold that we might not know how to truly express. While we still say the pledge of allegiance, and we don 't think the creator was a lunatic. We still say it with a meaning of peace where as the war prayer is the true meaning that we don 't say.
Furthermore, we have tried to briefly show how it is possible to compare the two wars to each other without declaring that one is more total than the other, but rather using the concept of ‘total war’ to define similarities and differences between the two wars for historical background. Also, this essay has been attempting to bring in interpretations from the interwar period and after to indicate the way the term have varied trough the 20th century, this to show how the concept can be used quite widely. It is evident that the concept of ‘total war’ is a large one where different interpretations make it intricate to use as an analytic tool. The Conclusion would be that the concept of ‘total war’ is a wide and open term, which can if seen as nothing more than an ideal, be used to get an understanding of the history of the two wars, however, it also argues that the ideology of ‘total war’ can be widely different depending on the Historian using the term, that it may cause more confusion than presenting us with a helpful tool to comprehend the background of the two
It all happened so fast that’s an example of pathos since he used a story and emotional impact. Eli Wiesel made sure he expressed his claim throughout his speech he showed that we shouldn’t divide others due to their race, religion, or political views. He also believed violence is not the answer and we should act on more peaceful solutions. Eli states that “violence is not the answer. Terrorism is the most dangerous of answers.
The author shows this with all of the feelings, facts and descriptions he uses. This book is very important because it teaches the reader things they didn’t know well or proves to them that they are wrong if they believed that the Holocaust was not harmful. No one had the right to treat these people in that way and no one has the right to ban this book because this will be censorship. Night also shows the truth about the Holocaust and teaches us that this period in history should be prevented from happening
government must acknowledge the program’s mistakes and correct them to bring them in line with international law and a smarter strategy. Part of this is acknowledging the civilian deaths caused by strikes and apologizing to victims’ families. The U.S. has taken steps to reform the program, reportedly tightening the rules for targeting (along the lines of Boyle’s suggestion to only target High-Value enemies). But without transparency, there’s no way for the public to know what is actually happening and to evaluate the program’s success, except leaks. The war will continue in secret, any ineffectiveness hidden, except to the innocent
Malcolm X 's speech is fueled with anger and rage. He cautiously avoids directly encouraging his audience to be violent but makes statements like: "I don 't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time, you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence" (X 360). X is subliminally telling his audience that they haven 't run into nonviolence, but that the horrors being committed against them, because of the color of their skin, are violent. He is ironically saying that he is not telling them to go out and be violent but that they must fight violence with violence in effort of
Personally, I have a difficult time accepting the violence associated with war and find the idea of a draft to be reprehensible. It seems unjust to force another person into such violence against his or her own will. I feel it is all too often leaders use patriotism and other contrived excuses to justify such extreme violence. I would think a follower of Jesus would have trouble supporting war as the answer. According to the case study, "We are called to follow Jesus, not to make the world turn out right.
In the United States came under attack for depriving terrorists of human and constitutional rights. These non-citizens should be protected under international human right laws, however just as in 1942, the united states uses the grounds of protecting national security as justification for their actions. Many Americans agree that terrorist should be tortured for information, as they pose a threat to national security, however this view is not held worldwide. Torture of these captives goes against international humanitarian efforts. "In its treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo, (the United States) has been unwilling to fully apply international humanitarian law ... [and] has flouted international human rights standards (Lapkin 11) ".
Lastly, McCormack states that “This type of legislation threatens our ability to work for change within society and acts to silence voices of dissent” (McCormack). This is arguable because the act doesn’t restrict freedom, it protects liberties. The Patriot Act is justified by the 9/11 attacks because it has helped put dozens of terrorism attempts in the ground, it has broken down communication barriers that were built between the branches of the government, and overall has heightened every
Civil Liberties Some would argue that people would rather have security instead of liberty. But if that were true, why would we risk our lives in a war to ensure our freedoms? It’s because our rights are some of the most important things in our lives that some of us would die for. However, ever since the tragic incident of 9/11, National security has slowly been chipping away at our liberties. National security has altered several of our amendments taking away our freedom of speech, freedom of unreasonable search and seizures, freedom of being held without charge, and much more.