Argumentative Essay: The Good War

Diplomacy alone is not enough to protect a person from destruction. Because World War II is called the “good war”, there has been debate over the accounts this war had in involvement. Thinking in terms of good/bad, right/wrong, left/right, I don’t think this is a valid way of thinking of war. War is never the same and is not a yes/no circumstance. It is dependent upon the people involved. No war is developed by choice. The nation that doesn’t accurately prepare for war and show its capabilities will eventually become the victims within warfare. Bess stated, “The victors in World War II bequeathed to us the United Nations in the hope that it would take us into a new era in which we could avoid interstate warfare,”. War is a final decision. It exists in reality and is an event that cannot be changed.

Killing is often the worst thing that will happen to an individual. Killing on a larger scale and organizing a group of people to kill a numerous amount of others is very different. When a government is involved and kills another nations population, it is not always viewed as a moral issue. When a government kills their own population, it is seen as justification for another nation. Killing in war can be seen as a positive action. People like to think of war as a sport. A contest between two armies strung out across a battlefield. We, as a society, are trying to restore the status of war as a sport. Competing against an invisible opponent over an honorable one. War has become a sport in which it is being approved regardless of who dies. Veterans, who fought during these wars, have mental breakdowns caused by their fearless battles. According to Bess, “You cannot just plunge people into [violence] and expect them to come back as if nothing had happened.”. We imprison the ones who hurt animals, yet don’t torture the ones who kill human beings in time of