Persuasive Essay On Military Intervention

Attention-getter: “School ownership is our goal.” Who on earth would want to have full control over a school and its students? The military would

Throughout post-WWII history, the United States has taken on the role of the world’s police. They feel the obligation to ensure the spread of their ideals for selfish and self-righteous reasons. John Mueller and Odd Arne Westad share their arguments as to what the United States’ actions have produced during the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, and Vietnam and during the post-9/11 period in the Afghanistan and Iraq. While some of their arguments are valid, others are flawed.

Since World War II, America has often been considered and called upon to serve as the world’s policeman. But is it a role we have performed effectively – and perhaps more importantly, is it one that we should continue to play? With opinion polls showing the American people’s overwhelming reluctance to serve a military role in foreign countries, it is time to consider whether the title of “world’s policeman” is one we should keep. Studying American interventions in the world since WWII offer some lessons and insights into both America’s desire – and ability – to police the world, and leads to the unavoidable conclusion that we are the only nation capable of preventing the all-too common atrocities, genocides and acts of aggression that destabilize continents and create untold human suffering.

When it comes to Canadian History, perhaps the most controversial and widely disputable topic of debate would have to be one of Canada’s greatest wars: The War of 1812. A wide array of views are held on many aspects of the war ranging from who won to what ramifications the war would ultimately sire. In yet another discussion on the ever so controversial War of 1812, a new question was posed and deliberated by five historians: whose war, was it? Like any other question posed about this war a multitude of ideas would ultimately arise in each of their differing viewpoints. In their roundhouse discussion, the historians would ultimately serve to paint the War of 1812 as a war that transcends much further than the nationalistic view. A view that, though an important part of Canadian history, has been exaggerated to the point of choking out the many voices who fought and continue to fight for inclusion in the narrative. In their remembrance of the War of 1812, society unwittingly failed history in their lackluster commemorations which exclude important narratives and voices and stand tainted by the misuse of history to serve the nationalistic agenda.

I agree the united states should go to war. Germans used unrestricted submarine warfare to stop the British from getting supplies. Ships from the United States were becoming targets as they tried to trade. The Sinking of the lusitania which 128 americans died on, this made america upset. This raised outrage against Germany.

[1] In her widely known call for American action in the face of genocide, A Problem From Hell, former journalist Samantha Powers wrote “’all progress depends on the unreasonable man.’ After a century of doing so little to prevent, suppress, and punish genocide, Americans must join and thereby legitimate the ranks of the unreasonable.” Her demand was that American society at large join the few in its ranks who have vehemently fought for U.S. action in the face of genocide, long considered the “unreasonable”. Power is but one member, albeit a prominent member, of a school of though called interventionism. Interventionism strongly advocated for the use of U.S. military action to put a stop to genocide. It draws strongly from language of

Ever had that one friend? The one who tries to help, but no matter how hard he tries, he just aggravates the situation. This friend, Steve, insists he is helping, and those around, too, would support that he is indeed helping. But Steve is actually worsening the circumstances. He is like countries who provide foreign aid to less developed countries. Foreign aid, defined as “the international transfer of capital, goods, or services from a country or international organization for the benefit of the recipient country or its population,” can be military, economic, or humanitarian (“Foreign”). It is often granted to less developed countries in order to evoke government reforms or to stimulate economic growth. However, foreign aid neither elicits government reform, nor does it consistently and reliably stimulate economic growth; therefore, the United States should discontinue providing foreign economic aid.

America has changed immensely since WWI. Our policies of isolationism and distance from other countries have evolved into open involvement, large trade agreements, and a booming economy. However, as we have become more involved as a nation, we have used our military less sparingly. The American military is used to garrison other countries, allied and warzone. Our military is being used to oversee diplomatic meetings that we have no national or economic ties too. This leads to the question of when American military involvement or force is justified when America is not at war. The logical answer is that American military force is only justified through self-defense as well as humanitarian intervention.

I would like to support my own position (E), which is that the United States should take military action when both the physical safety and citizens of the country is threatened as well as when a situation in another country becomes drastically dangerous. For example, once 9/11 attacks occurred in America and killed "nearly 3000 people", it posed an accentuated threat, making it ideal and just for military action to take place. It would be a way to prevent terrorists attacks such as that one from ever occurring again. While the United States should take care and benefit themselves, it is salient for them to also consider taking military action when a different and more vulnerable country is in a profound state. As it is stated in the text,

Something that I vehemently disagree on with both political parties is defense spending. In their platforms, both parties seem to favor an increase in funding, even if it is a bit more discretely worded under the Democratic Party’s platform. In my view, we allocate too much of our country’s resources to the military, and neglect many of its other needs in doing so. The United States military is by far and away the most puissant armed organization in the world. Here are some figures that help illustrate just how pragmatic that last statement is. In the 2015 fiscal year we spent 598 billion dollars on the military; that’s over fifty percent of the federal government’s discretionary spending.(1) In 2016, only 19 of 194 nations had a higher GDP than America’s defense budget; that means that the U.S. spends more money per year on its military than the total value of all goods produced and services provided in a country in a year in 90 percent of the world’s nations.(2) According to 2016 statistics the U.S. spends more on its defense than the next eight countries combined.(3) That same year, China was second with a 215 billion dollar defense budget and Russia was third at approximately 69 billion.

Creating relations between races and ethnicity's has always been vital to the success of the world. The United States and the international community have been, more often than not, late to stop violent acts against humanity. It took decades after the United Nations was created, and after a horrendous genocide in Rwanda, for the International Criminal Court to be created. Despite these two establishments created for international peace and security, crimes against humans rights are still occurring.When human rights are being violated, it is necessary for the U.S. and its allies to intervene in ethnic conflicts. While others may say humanitarian intervention goes against a state’s sovereign authority,it is necessary to protect

In his 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington warns against developing “permanent alliances” with foreign countries, arguing that this entanglement leads to unnecessary complication (Washington). Of course, Washington’s warning is somewhat grounded in the fact that the United States was a young country that could not handle excessive participation in foreign affairs. Nevertheless, it is important to pay some attention to Washington’s words. Since 1900, the United States has executed more than two hundred military interventions. Furthermore, sixteen of these are marked as “attempts at nation building” (Pei and Kasper 2003). Since 1900, the United States has taken on a habit of intervening in foreign countries with the intention of maintaining peace. However, as indicated by Pei and Kasper, success in improving these nations is rarely the case. Of the aforementioned sixteen efforts, democracy was preserved in only four cases. This low success rate proves that building a nation is an inherently complicated – and difficult – process that should only be executed when the recipients truly want help.

I think the people should join the army. Because they are just not big enough. We need to not have so much enemies. Another reason is we can be bigger and take down the other farces faster. The more navy seals we have the more we can ship out good and make more money.

Can you imagine yourself getting evaporated in a blink of an eye? I know no one wants to imagine that, but it might become reality soon if countries still keep possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, these weapons of mass eradication are an upcoming threat across the world because of its capacity for destruction which is why I chose to tell people my opinion on this matter. Additionally, I adopted this crisis as my essay topic because nuclear arms aren't just a domestic problem; it is a dilemma on a global scale. My aim today is to give you my two cents on why the prohibition of nuclear arsenals is the right thing to do! To stop this emergency, I will need all my readers help in protesting in peaceful ways against the arms because as Martin Luther once said: “Nothing good ever comes from violence.”

Countering the rise of militant extremism has central to U.S. strategy in the Middle East, but the same has not generally been true for Africa. A mix of communal tensions, radical Islamism, and anti-Americanism has produced a breeding ground for militancy.