Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The protest movement during the Vietnam war
Critique the just war theory
The protest movement during the Vietnam war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The protest movement during the Vietnam war
Opposition to the Vietnam War
The Vietnam War created one of the most dividing periods of American history. Many saw the war as an unnecessary conflict that cost dearly in both money and lives. The United States’ involvement in the war was also considered to be unjustified. Despite the many difficulties faced during the controversial time, many activists raised issues in opposition to the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War because of its unjust nature with acts such as the high casualty rates, scorched earth policies, and the lack of an immediate threat.
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
... middle of paper ...
...eflected the American standard to stand for one’s beliefs against oppressive authority.
Perhaps one of the most tragic results of antiwar demonstration happened at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, when forces of the National Guard opened fire on student protestors, killing 4 and wounding 9 (“Kent State Student Killings” 1).
In response to the unjust warfare committed in Vietnam, many activists rose to the challenge to oppose what they believed was wrong. Their activism has slowly changed the way the United States conducts foreign policy. Many forms of weaponry such as herbicides and napalm have been removed from use due to the outcry of their inhumane methods. The sacrifices that these activists made should serve as an example for modern and future American citizens to oppose unjust conflicts and war crimes regardless of the nation they are committed by.
James A. Baldwin once said, “The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose” (BrainyQuote.com). In the 1960s, “the man” was youth across the country. The Vietnam war was in full force, and students across the country were in an outrage. Society needed an excuse to rebel against the boring and safe way of life they were used to; Vietnam gave them the excuse they needed. Teenagers from different universities came together and formed various organizations that protested the Vietnam war for many reasons. These reasons included protesting weapons and different tactics used in the war, and the reason the U.S. entered the war in the first place. These get-togethers had such a monumental impact on their way of life that it was famously named the Anti-War Movement. When the Vietnam War ended, The United States did not have a real concrete reason why; there were a bunch of theories about why the war ended. Through negative media attention and rebellious youth culture, the Anti-War Movement made a monumental impact in the ending of the Vietnam War.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Particularly during the Vietnam War, tensions had been brewing over civil rights and pacifist movements, often headed by young people or students who felt that the government were not listening to their opinions and interests. With the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King, racial tensions came to a head, sparking riots and animosity towards the government, who some perceived as countering or hindering the civil rights movement. The police and National Guard reacted violently to these riots, and in the case of student protests, many of which were peaceful, such during as the 1970 Kent State ‘Massacre’ where four were killed and nine injured during an anti-war demonstration. This was particularly damning as unarmed students were killed, and the reaction was immense. The Kent State ‘Massacre’ made it clear that to many social dynamics, the police, and by extension the government, were becoming the
The Vietnam War was one of many. One reason some people argue the US should have been in the Vietnam War is because of the belief the US was trying to help establish a democracy there. The Vietnam war helping America win the cold war was another reason people believe the US was justified in the Vietnam war. Others believe that the US should not have been there because they were supporting a corrupt government, another reason is that American warfare was excessive and abusively killed many innocent civilians and ruined the land. While it appeared that the US was trying to spread democracy and win the cold war, but in truth, the US was supporting a mini Hitler, and our strategy had little chance of
The Vietnam War took place in between 1947- 1975. It consisted of North Vietnam trying to make South Vietnam a communism government. The United States later joined this conflict because of the stress North Vietnam was putting to South Vietnam to become a government that America did not want. The main reason why America joined was because of a theory called the Domino Effect. America and Russia were going through what has been dubbed the Cold War. The Domino Effect is the theory that communism will spread form one country to another. United states does not want this because our government is a democracy and communism opposes everything we stand for. America fearing communism was growing, stepped into Vietnam with America’s interest in mind, instead of Vietnam’s. There are several reason why American should have not gotten involved with this war. The most important reason was that America government officials made to much of a big deal about communism. This might sound cynical, but America to a certain degree did over react. Let it be said that it is much easier to say this after the fact. By looking back at McCarthyism, we can see the silliness of this fear. There is a serious side though. Thousands of people dies for a government that has no impact of their daily life. What regime Vietnam was going to change over to had no effect on the every day cycle of the United States. So truly, one can say, this can not one thing to do with America, its government and people.
Overall, US involvement in the Vietnam War polarized American citizens into two categories. They either supported involvement in the war against the communists or they disapproved of US intervention in the war. Points against the war included the heavy economic debt, thousands of lives lost and soldiers wounded, and events like the My Lai Massacre. Points for the war included the desire to prevent the spread of communism, avenging the shot fired at the US ship, and evidence in the public opinion wars that showed Americans, overall, supported US involvement in the
The Vietnam conflict has been known for being the most unpopular war in the history of the United States. The war of 1812, the Mexican war and the Korean conflict of the early 1950's were also opposed by large groups of the American people, but none of them generated the emotional anxiety and utter hatred that spawned Vietnam. The Vietnam war caused people to ask the question of sending our young people to die in places where they were particular wanted and for people who did not seem especial grateful.
Engaging in the war in Vietnam brought a whole different set of "American Views" to the topic of war. This time the country did not support the war like we've seen in the past. Mostly by young people, the war effort was criticized and Americans staged massive protests. The Vietnam War's controversy spurred a great many sources of protest, against our government's use of power, how far we could stretch the rights of free expression, and primarily against the violence of the war itself.
So many things influenced our involvement in the Vietnam War, and Lawrence examines the decisions we made in a greater context than just our own. He argues that international pressures controlled the attitudes and ideas of the United States, for the most part.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
The Vietnam War was a war that changed America forever. It was a long, costly war between Communist North Vietnam, with the aid of the Viet Cong, and Capitalist South Vietnam, aided by the United States. It was a controversial war at the time, but today, it remains embedded in America's history as a war to be remembered.
The Just war theory is a doctrine that has been studied by all sorts of leaders, religions, and especially military leaders. Basically it is a doctrine that consists of all sorts of military ethics of war and broken down into two parts, Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Just ad bellum is consisted of 5 parts, the first part is legitimate authority and what that means is that the people who are making the decision of war are recognized officials and understand the strategies of war. The second reason is for a just cause, having the right reasons for going to war and understanding that violent aggression is not the plan. The third is that the last resort is going to war, and being able to understand that before a country starts a war that can be solved in less violent ways. The fourth option is prospect of success, yes winning the war is a success but how many lives can be lost and still count that as a success. The final option is the political proportionality and that is when the wrong of war is proportionally less then the wars cons. I believe that if all non violent options of Just ad bellum have been tried and were given a fair shot and the only viable option is to go to war then going to war is acceptable. But if all non violent option shave not been exhausted and war is nothing but a quick decision this can be considered wrong and
The growing opposition to the war in the United States led to bitter divisions among Americans. Despite the decades of resolve, billions upon billions of dollars and nearly 60,000 American lives along with many more injuries, the United States failed to achieve its objectives. So was this costly conflict worth it? The actual rival that lead to the Vietnam War actually started