Should We Go To War Justified?

Just cause is the justification of waging war. The simplest way to achieve this is for the nations to defend itself from being physically and aggressively attacked by another nation. The United States and its allies were able to accomplish this. By 1939 Europe was in turmoil and Great Britain and France were watching on in horror as Hitler’s Nazi Germany had steam rolled through Czechoslovakia and Poland; and later in 1940 sweeping through France. The United States faced physical aggression by Japan, and only then was there a call to war. Prior to the events in early December, the U.S. wanted to remain distanced from the war in terms of man power; but not material. The Allies of a matter of self-defense and coming to the defense of others, as well

The American’s were not justified in waging war against the British.The British were actually paying a lot more in taxes than the american colonists. Whately and other British officials thought that since they fought for our advantages that we should in turn agree to pay higher taxes to compensate for the war that was fought for our benefit.

Yes, President Roosevelt’s declaration of war was justified according to Just War Theory because the U.S. was at peace with the the Empire of Japan, planning to maintain peace in the Pacific. The Empire of Japan’s government, clandestinely, had been planning to deceive America by making false allegations of agreeing with the U.S. in the pursuit of keeping peace in the Pacific. The United States reasoning of going to war was justified because Japan showed a great level of hostility to our nation. It was are last resort to go to war because Japan's terrorised the U.S. after we had made peace with them. The United States territory and interests were in danger, so at the time, self defence was the only option.For President Roosevelt declaration

Can a nation justify a war if it results in death? Over thousands of years, many wars resulted in millions of deaths. War killed civilians for the sake of land, money, and resources, however lives have also been saved because of a country protecting the innocent. Winston Churchill once bravely told the people of England, “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” Can war be Justifiable for self-defense?

Following the attacks in America on September 11, 1999, there was a public outcry for justice throughout the country. Even with significant public support to wage war against Iraq, there was not enough reason to persuade congress. Over the course of two years, President George W. Bush proved that there was a purpose in the war, not only seek vengeance against terrorism; but, gift a people freedom from dictatorship. Yet, there were still downsides to war including inevitable loss of American life and damaged reputation for our country. For that reason, the United States of America should not have gone to war with Iraq in 2003 due to the extensive federal funding for undesirable warfare which took away from domestic prosperity, the preventable injury to veterans as well as violence against civilians, and the country’s damaged reputation achieved due to the illegitimacy of the war.

On the debate of whether America should go to war with ISIS or not. I decided to not chose either or but both. I am only seventeen, and quite frankly I wish the problem would just go away. Regrettably, reality does not work that way. Thus I choose to talk about both sides.

When, if ever, is a war just? People throughout history have tried to define a just war, from Martin Luther, when he said War is not right, even between equal and equal, unless it is fought with such a good conscience that one can say, ‘My neighbor compels and forces me to fight, though I would rather avoid it.’ In that case, it can be called not only war but due protection and self-defense (Scheer). War is just when pertaining rules and regulations are followed. Firstly, an example of a just war is World War 2. When America joined the war they joined in a just way by declaring war from a lawful authority such as the American government.

Typically, theories of what contitutes a just war include several different criteria. These can be split into categories: those concerned with becoming involved in the war and those that are concerned with actions during the war. More recently there has been the added consideration of what is done following the war (how the triumphant nation treats its opponents once they've been beaten.) (Wikipedia)

Moreover the history of military force being justified, “[t]he lesson of the Vietnam war and Beirut loomed in November of 1984, when Reagan 's Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger gave an influential speech embracing many of military concerns” (Young).The Vietnam is an example of military force not being justified correct. Which was to stop communism from spreading but was used as an excuse to us military force. However, many wars are still being started to prove countries military power against the smallest threats and want to justify military force. So any threat, defense or to keep world peace military force should be justified for the big problems against our country.

The first phase of just war, Jus ad Bellum, requires several things to occur prior to going to war. The first and foremost is that there be a Just Cause or an inherent natural right, such as self-defense, to go to war. For example, the U.S. most certainly had a just cause to go to war with Japan based on the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces. Other key criteria under Jus ad Bellum to justify war are: right intention, public declaration by a proper authority, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality.

Can a nation justify using military force? A very respected English leader Winston Churchill once told the people of England that, “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be we shall fight on the beaches we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” In contraction, John F. Kennedy uttered, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” Over the course of history, millions of people were murdered for the sake of land, resources, and money. In comparison, war been fought to save lives and for self-defense. In some cases, war can be justified.

There are many different things that go into what makes a more just and what makes a war unjust. Sun-Tzu says that a war ought to be waged if it is an intelligent one and a just one. For the purposes of time, the focus will be on three of Sun-Tzu’s most important principles; 1. Know your enemy and yourself, then you will win a 100 battles, 2. Winning a 100 battles is not the pinnacle of success, avoiding war altogether, and 3. No long war is successful. In Sun Tzu’s first principle, he is saying that one must know the reasons why they are fighting as well as the enemy and their motives, if one can do that then the war will be a successful one. Now let's look at this and apply it to the Iraq war. For one, as stated earlier in this document, the United States had no reasonable grounds as too the reason for the invasion of iraq. It was all based off of fears that there were weapons of mass destruction which later turned out to never had existed in the first place. Likewise, who really was the enemy in the Iraq war? Was it Saddam Hussain, terrorist or innocent people. Looking at just numbers it would appear that the United States military did not clearly understand the enemy at hand which is why war is considered a failure to

The reasonable chance of success must be present. Therefore, a “just war” is a winnable war.

The situations that are portrayed in the texts “Hey – I’d rather you hadn’t married someone else” by G. Brock and “Not Compatible” by Lain Michaels are quite similar as they concern the meeting between two people that were formerly together in a relationship. Both texts show the meeting to be “mildly uncomfortable” and “awkward” where there isn’t much talked about. Both texts situations in the text suggest to the audience of unspoken feelings and also their relationship in the past. Although Brocks character reflects over his memories with Amy, Michaels Character seems to be “not compatible” with Linda and the other women. (b) Compare the male characters presented in these two texts?

“Take away the boundaries of language, culture, ethnicity, and background, go below different skin colors, and you’ll find that under the bone casing of our skulls, we each have a brain that is fundamentally the same as the brain of every other human being in the world. The most beautiful organ in the human body, our brain is the storehouse of our individual identities, our unique thoughts and feelings-yet its gray matter shines the same in everyone.” As the above quote from Becoming Dr. Q (A. Quiñones-Hinojosa, MD) states, we are all the same in a sense, but yet we are so different. Underneath it all- underneath the skin that shields us, through each blood vessel, each capillary, our beating heart, everything that we are composed of makes