The Wars Analysis

I think the central idea of “From War To America” by Kristen Lewis is that hope is stronger than fear. I think this because in the text it says, “...Six million Syrians have lost their homes...”. This is a time that you need hope and not fear because you have lost the little you have and the place you grew up in. Another example where you need hope more than fear is, “ ...4 million people at risk of starvation…”, this text shows that if the people of Syria lost hope they would have died and let fear get the best of them. One last example of how hope is stronger than fear is, “Bullets whizzed around them. They ducked behind a wall to catch their breath.” This shows that if they would have let fear get the best of them, they would have been in

Lastly, the notion to hurt one’s enemy peoples to force their government into a complete surrender and to minimize the general loss of one’s own troops is immoral. Naturally, the typical ethical standards of war would not justify any use of dehumanization in order for a nation to supersede the other. The Japanese became dehumanized in the minds of American combatants and civilians. The process enabled greater cultural and physical differences between white Americans and Japanese than between the former and their European foes. In Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977), he defines “ the use of force by one nation against another is always wrong unless the latter has already forfeited its basic rights.” Walzer is clearly stating that wars; especially nuclear wars are unjust if they strip away basic civilian rights. In other words, they are ponds in a game of political and nuclear warfare.

Robert's ethics return to him and take priority over military obedience when he tries to rescue horses from the cruelties of war. Robert disobeys Captain Leather's orders and tries to free the horses from the barn that is threatened by falling shells. Unfortunately, the horses die before he can save them all and Robert is filled with anger, shooting Captain Leather between the eyes for causing their death. From this moment on, he rebels against anyone who does not respect his love for animals. This rebellion continues when he barricades himself in a barn with the horses and shouts, "[w]e shall not be taken" (212). It is Robert's strong connection with the horses that leads to his downfall, because the "we" implies to Major Mickle that Robert has an accomplice, and for that reason an attack is ordered. Robert burns

There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II. It’s unimaginable that we would now use anything even remotely approaching the full measure of our military power (aside from the nuclear option) in the wars we fight. This seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and the Middle East. But the fact is that we were forced to take our soldiers out of Vietnam because we had lost, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along in the Middle East against a hit-and-run organization that we seem unable to stop. Yet no one, including, very likely, the insurgents themselves, believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly America has adopted and has an accurate sense of proportionality.

For the students and staff of the University of Saskatchewan in the early 20th century, times of conflict generated a necessity for change. During the Great War, the recruitment propaganda was everywhere on campus; mainly consisting of images of masculinity intended to inspire men to enlist or shame them for not doing so. However, due to the lowering number of male students and faculty, the role of women had to adapt. Through administrative archive documents depicting the need for female instructors, such as Jean Bayer, to replace former male professors, we see evidence of this adaptation. While this shift may not have fundamentally changed gendered ideologies on a large, permanent scale, the effect it had within the University of Saskatchewan was nonetheless significant. The Great War acted as a catalyst for an integral change at the University of Saskatchewan; students and

Timothy Findley’s The Wars portrays the effects of war on soldiers in battle, as well as the members of family and friends that suffer from loss and insanity. As each character over the progression of the story is exposed to change, the character’s ability to adapt has a significant correlation with their survival, those that can quickly adapt to survive can manage to get by. Soldiers must be able to suppress the extreme stress on the battlefield. Those that cannot overcome these challenges do not survive in war. Murder is quickly pushed out of a soldiers mind, killing others in effort to protect their own life or the life of others around them. Findley demonstrates how war can negatively alter a person’s behaviour. This is seen through

War is a terrible, but dark truth of the world we live in today and throughout most of history. After the 9/11 attacks, America declared war and soon after started to deploy soldiers to attack. To cover the war in a new aspect, many reports were sent to war zones to get a story for the people of America. One of these reporters was Dexter Filkins. After his horrendous time in the war zone, Filkins made a book titled “The Forever War”. In one of the chapters, it discusses suicide bombings during the war. Filkins, was an inside eye to the war, was not a soldier, but just a citizen trying to get a story for the rest of America. I believe Filkins wrote this chapter to show America about the continuous fear the soldiers and the civilians in the war zone.

War is an omnipresent evil. At times it might be necessary, as in stopping a tyrant from oppressing a society, but at other times, it causes more harm than good. War has demolished entire communities, reshaped lives, and damaged individuals’ mental stability. Not until recent centuries has the impact of war on a person’s psychological state been considered. One book, which was published in the middle of the twentieth century, Slaughterhouse-Five, by Kurt Vonnegut, is able to show the various possible results war can have on a person’s mind. In the novel Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut is effectively able to portray the psychological effects of war through Billy Pilgrim and his fantasies, his indifference, and his alienation because of Vonnegut’s own personal experiences in war.

At about 1:00 in the morning on April 6, members of the United States House of Representatives went home exhausted. After 15 hours of debating over President Wilson’s request for a declaration of war, all members voted for the war… All except one. Jeanette Rankin is the first woman elected to Congress, and is also the only member to vote against the war. Rankin declared “I want to stand by my country but I cannot vote for war. I vote no.” She later clarified her response saying “I believe that the first vote I cast was the most significant vote and a most significant act on the part of a woman, because women are going to have to stop war. I felt at the time that the first woman in Congress should take the first stand

Since the dawn of mankind, war has played a significant role in numerous societies. War is typically a conflict between two or more people or groups. With this in mind, it’s possible to conclude that there are two sides to every story in war. The struggle of war, as we can observe, may not always be as “black and white” as it may seem. Just as other subjects, war has many different viewpoints. A fascinating viewpoint comes from the mind of Samuel Clemens, the man also known as Mark Twain. Twain’s perspective in “The War Prayer” reveals the sad, tragic reality of war.

Tom Standage used many points in human history to illustrate his thesis. He uses different foods and connects them to their effect to pivotal time periods of human history. For example, in chapter seven, New World, New Foods, the author writes of the importance of maize and spices during the Columbus Exchange period. Similarly, in chapter nine, The Fuel of War, Standage explains the influence of food in war. “What is the most devastating and effective weapon in the history of warfare?... It is something so obvious that is easy to overlook: food, or more precisely, control of food supply.” (Standage,145) In other words, the deadliest weapon in the history of warfare is starvation. The previous examples help the author prove his thesis because

     In the face of tragedy, Robert manages to hold true to his ideals. When Robert and his men where stuck in the hole, Robert manages to help him men escape. When he fears being attacked, he quickly shoots the German who is watching them. He would always live to regret this mistake. “The sound of it would haunt him to the day he died. (p130)” Not long after that, when

In spite of the Martians opening power, their downfall comes almost as quickly as they take control but it is not due to the British fighting back. The British fought as best they could, nonetheless “in the end the only thing that stops the invaders is yet a force of nature” (Wager 3). Wells is able to comment symbolically on how mankind is best suited for their own land, not the land of others, through the death of the Martians, who are “slain by the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared” (Wells 189). New lands means new diseases that one’s body has never been exposed too, which can lead to epidemic in the invading community. The tripods that caused immense devastation were now “harmless tripod towers of shinning

Food is an imperative element of society that has continually brought people together all around the world. From a BBQ in East Tennessee to eating Chow Mein in China, food holds a deep cultural meaning and power. It has the means to be a weapon of war, and is a force of development. It is an organizer and a tool to bring people together, and can be influenced by our social status. Needless to say, as this world moves into a more modern way of life, the traditional ways of living are visually fading away.

“Why can't everyone just get along?” is an easy question that is not so easily answered. Those words always flew out of my mouth every time my conservative, Catholic grandparents and liberal mother criticized and attacked one another. They were all just heated arguments until once, my grandmother called my mom explicit names because she voted for Obama in 2012. My Mom, of course, took offense to the name calling and just told herself that their opinions don't matter. I'm sure my grandparents said the same about her opinions. My family was torn for months. As a naive 12-year-old boy, all I felt was anger at my grandmother for attacking my mother like that. I couldn't believe someone would insult someone's character because she has a different belief. It confused me. I couldn’t wrap my mind around how they could have heart to heart conversations about lost loved ones and help each other out on the side of the highway, yet always be on offense any time the election came up.