Neither side of the Libyan Civil War can be considered completely blameless from unjustified attacks on civilians. According to Walzer, “War is distinguishable from murder and massacre only when restrictions are established on the reach of battle,” which means that following a standard during war-time makes it easier to distinguish how an army’s conduct affects the war (Walzer, 42). Similarly, the Geneva Conventions in 1949 can serve as a baseline for determining whether or not either side in the Libyan Civil War committed war crimes. For instance, in the Geneva Conventions it’s stated that “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Not only must civilians and civilian objects not be the object of attack, but every feasible precaution must also be taken, in attacking or locating military objectives…” (“Summary of the Geneva Conventions”). Initially, before the country went into full civil war, protests in Benghazi were met with “Hovering helicopters fired into the crowds… Many were hit by mortar and automatic weapon fire…” (CNN Wire Staff). This kind of response was not morally justified, and it presents …show more content…
The no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya pressured Gaddafi to offer free elections in a cease-fire agreement, which was rejected by NATO and the NTC, and followed by NATO bombarding Tripoli (Carey). While the intervention was morally justified, it’s not clear that the humanitarian intervention was completely successful, as Libya is currently in another civil war (“National Post View”). The efforts of NATO and the United Nations helped bring peace to Libya for two years before another civil war broke out, so perhaps the intervention was partially successful. In the end, what needs to be considered in any intervention is whether or not there is a plan for how to change the country in the right direction, as well as making sure that foreign powers is not the only component holding the country
There was a war in Sierra Leone, Africa, from 1991 to 2002 where a rebel army stormed through African villages amputating and raping citizens left and right (“Sierra Leone Profile”). Adebunmi Savage, a former citizen of Sierra Leone, describes the reality of this civil war: In 1996 the war in Sierra Leone was becoming a horrific catastrophe. Children were recruited to be soldiers, families were murdered, death came easily, and staying alive was a privilege. Torture became the favorite pastime of the Revolutionary United Front rebel movement, which was against the citizens who supported Sierra Leone’s president, Ahmad Tejan Kabbah.
In 1986, Reagan took violent action on his war against terrorism. Reagan started his presidency in 1981 beginning his war on terrorism. The United States has been struggling with having good relations with Libya, specifically relations with Muammar Gaddafi (El-Gadhafi, Quadaffi, Qadhafi). Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator first came to power in 1969. Over the past few decades, the United States tried to solve conflicts with Libya diplomatically (SOURCE). Once Reagan was elected president, he tried to continue the tradition of solving issues using diplomatic ways, however Gaddafi refused to take Reagan’s threats seriously. The conflict with Libya and the United States escalated when it was discovered that Gaddafi was behind the discotheque bombings in West Berlin on April 5th 1986. Gaddafi has violently attacked not only innocent civilians, but had planned assassination attempts on United States officials that were abroad (SOURCE). Gaddafi’s previous actions, led to the bombings in Libya on April 14th 1986, when Operation El Dorado Canyon took place. President Reagan later justified these bombings in his address to the nation the evening the bombings took place (SOURCE?).
In this essay you will learn about how the civil war started,victims which are how many people died , how many people captured and missing and how many people were wounded and how many people fought in the war
Could the Civil war be avoided? The civil war was a war that split the United States into two sides. There was the north who opposed slavery and the south who wanted slavery. During this time president Abraham Lincoln was elected into the white house. When the civil war ended there was a total of 60,000+ people dead! Could the civil war be avoided? The civil war could have been avoided for three reasons, There were compromises, the number of slaves were going down and there were other countries who abolished slavery without going into a civil war.
In August of 1992, President George Bush Sr. sent US soldiers into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief to those Somalis suffering from starvation. The major problems in Somalia started when President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans. Although there were several opposing groups, the prominent one was led by Mohammed Farah Aidid. Following the overthrow of Barre, a massive power struggle ensued. These small scale civil wars led to the destruction of the agriculture in Somalia, which in turn led to the deprivation of food in large parts of the country. When the international community heard of this, large quantities of food were sent to ease Somali suffering. However, clan leaders like Aidid routinely hijacked food and exchanged it for weapons leaving thousands to starve to death. An estimated 300,000 Somalis died between 1991 and 1992 (Clancy 234-236). US soldiers were later sent into Somalia to capture Aidid, but when the operation got bloody, displeasing the American public, Clinton withdrew troops (Battersby 151). In The Morality of War, Brian Orend outlines ethical guidelines that should be followed in all three stages of war: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Orend states that a nation can be moral going into war, but immoral coming out of one. Did the US act justly in all facets of the Somali conflict? The United States espoused all the guiding principles of jus ad bellum but right intent, upheld the principals of jus in bello, and clearly failed to uphold several aspects of jus post bellum during the armed humanitarian intervention in Somalia.
For a long time, historians have been unable to come to an agreement to why the Civil War started and whether or not it was repressible or irrepressible. Northern and Southern writers had different opinions as to why the war occurred. To most Northern writers, the war occurred because of the unlawful plan of slave owners who were committed to a not liable institution. The North defended the Constitution and was against the immoral aggression of the south. The North clearly defended the Union. However, the Southern writers on the other hand tried to show their views on why the Civil War started by portraying the North as the aggressive ones who wanted to destroy the South and all of its institutions. The south insisted that slavery was not the main cause of the war but instead was the aggressive and unconstitutional acts of the North. The south claimed the North used its powers for political and economic gain and denied that the war had stemmed from differences over slavery. The north’s domineering attitude toward the south was the main cause for their hostilities. They defended this ...
Julius Caesar is well-known for being the Roman general and statesman who turned the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire (Biography.com Editors). The Civil War in Rome was essentially inevitable. During the years 49-45B.C the Civil War began for a variety of reasons. Some issues that lead to the Civil War were government issues, crossing the Rubicon and the power of the Roman citizens. Throughout my essay I will explain in detail the reasons why the Roman Civil War was no longer an option and why it had to happen.
Civil War During the American Civil War, which lasted from 1861-1865, over 620,000 accounted soldiers were killed. Known as the "the first modern war", historians generally agree that the reason for this was because this was a time of transition for the military. Armies and Navies were still using tactics where they would gather large forces of firepower to bear on the enemy. At the same time, weapons were being developed which were accurate and lethal well beyond any arms of the earlier conflicts.
The Civil War began on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor when the Confederate army attacked Union soldier and ended on May 9, 1865 with a Union Victory. There are many events, laws, and people that provoked the Civil War. The two most important causes are slavery and the expansion of the United States causing an unbalance of free and slave states. This essay examines major events that initiated the war starting from the Compromise of 1820 to the election of 1860 and proves how the Civil War was inevitable.
Between the economic, political, and social quarrels that evolved throughout the 1850's, the North and the South underwent many changes that led to the start of the Civil War. The most attributing factor to this war was that of a moral dispute between two sections who both wanted different things. Slavery became the issue that spread across the nation and was disputed back and forth between the North and South sections of the country.
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
The Civil War is widely believed to be the necessary evil our country had to go through in order to come to a common understanding and abolishment of slavery. Yet the slavery had existed in our lands since before our country was even established, so what made us examine it closer so as to see that its nullification was required? Between the years of 1850 to 1861, our country¡¯s eyes were turned toward slavery by the major reform movements in the north, the discrepancies that came with the westward expansion, and the dispute over what rights a state was truly granted.
After thoroughly assessing past readings and additional research on the Civil War between the North and South, it was quite apparent that the war was inevitable. Opposed views on this would have probably argued that slavery was the only reason for the Civil War. Therefore suggesting it could have been avoided if a resolution was reached on the issue of slavery. Although there is accuracy in stating slavery led to the war, it wasn’t the only factor. Along with slavery, political issues with territorial expansion, there were also economic and social differences between North and South. These differences, being more than just one or two, gradually led to a war that was bound to happened one way or another.
The acts of violence that were performed by rebels in Africa were horrific. Adults and children were murdered, mutilated, tortured, and raped. The Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone performed despicable acts of cutting off a people's body parts with machetes to instill fear in the community. If you were working in the diamond mines and not performing up to the standards of the rebels you would lose a body part as punishment. Rebels would continue to do this from one village to another in order “to take control of the mines in the area” (Hoyt). It is estimated that in Sierra Leone that over 20,000 people suffered mutilation. The acts that the rebels performed to these innocent victims was clearly a violation to their human rights. The RUF collected 125 million a year to fund their war on the government and the people of Sierra Leone.
A war crime is an unjust act of violence in which a military personnel violates the laws and acceptable behaviors of a war. Despite all the violence in a war, a soldier shooting another is not considered a war crime because it is not a violation to the laws and practices of a war, and it is considered just. A war crime is defined as a “violations [violation] of the laws and customs of war” (“War Crimes”), and are attacks “against civilian populations, prisoners of war, or in some cases enemy soldiers in the field” (Friedman). War crimes are typically committed with weapons or by uncommon, cruel, devastating military methods and are “…Committed primarily by military personnel” (Friedman). There are many different types of war crimes one can commit, including “murder, ill treatment…murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity” (Friedman). Originally constructed as international law by the London Charter on August 8th, 1945 and further developed by the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907 and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes are aggressive, unacceptable and unjust actions performed by military workforce that occur during a war.