Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The purpose of the war on terror
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The purpose of the war on terror
Our War Against Terrorism is Justified
This essay will address the question whether the war against terrorism declared by President George W. Bush is a just war.
According to the September 22nd edition of Star-Ledger, Professor Richard Falk, of Princeton University said “the mainstream media have turned into a 'war-mobilizing mechanism' leading to intense indoctrination of the public in support of a military response." "We are living in a society that is so convinced of its own innocence that it is ready to embark on its own 'holy war,'" Falk said. He said that if and when the United States decides to use force, it should do so only in conformance with international law and according to the principles of a "just" war. "These would include making it illegal to target non-military sites or people, making sure the response is proportionate and ensuring that no unnecessary pain is inflicted. "In Bush's address (Thursday night) I saw no signs of sensitivity to any of these limits, no deference to the authority of the United Nations," Falk said.
Contrary to what Prof. Falk suggested, our country does consider before undertaking such actions whether it complies with the description of a "just war." We had such a discussion, for example, before moving to turn back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. There was a good interview on the CNN website on the topic of a just war.
I don't believe there is any disagreement that non-violent methods of resolving conflicts must always be used when they are possible. But this is not always possible. Therefore the first thing to note is that there is such a thing as a "just war." The tradition goes back to St. Augustine and has been highly developed over the cent...
... middle of paper ...
... While moving against bin Laden and the ruling Taliban which protects him, Pres. Bush and his advisers have clearly stated that we have no quarrel with the Afghan people. Instead of dropping bombs on them, our government has started to airlift food to alleviate the acute distress caused by more than twenty years of uninterrupted war. There has not been any military action merely for the sake of taking action or assuaging any supposed public desire for revenge.
Thus I conclude that the war against terrorism meets all four criteria of a "just war." Sanity, virtue, and a sense of humor all depend, though in different ways, on having a proper sense of proportion. I suggest that early critics of the war on terrorism lack the necessary sense of proportion. They take themselves too seriously, and the situation and the ideas it contains not seriously enough.
In the novel, My Brother Sam is Dead, by James and Christopher Collier, they teach that there are many other ways to solve conflict besides war. War is violent, disgusting, and gruesome and so many people die in war. Families separate in war because of how many people want to be in the thrill of the war and also how many innocent family members die in the midst of war. Lastly, war is worthless and it was caused by a disagreement over something little and the outcome of war is not worth the many lives, time, and money and there are other ways to solve conflict besides to fight. War causes so many negative outcomes on this world that it needs to be avoided at all costs.
In a time full of chaos, desperation, and dissenting opinions, two definitive authors, Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry, led the way toward the American Revolution. Both men demanded action of their separate audiences. Paine wrote to inspire the commoners to fight while Henry spoke extemporaneously to compel the states’ delegates to create an army. Despite the differences between the two, both had very similar arguments which relied heavily upon God, abstract language, and ethos. In the end, both men were able to inspire their audiences and capture the approval and support of the masses. If not for these two highly influential and demanding men, the America that we know today might not exist.
In Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, the interconnection of people and events, that might ordinarily be viewed as disconnected or unrelated, is implicitly presented in the characters section. Dual roles are implemented by a playwright that has one actor portraying the roles of two or more characters, with or without thematic intentions. The use of “dual roles” in several scenes of this play can be viewed as a demonstration of Kushner’s effort in maintaining the interconnectedness between characters, communities (i.e. queer, heterosexual, AIDS and political communities) and events to which they are relative. This essay will argue that Kushner’s use of dual role’s effectively interconnects characters, events and their communities that may be seen as usually unrelated. Analysis of four specific characters, Antarctica, Oceania, Australia and Europa, in Act Five, Scene Five of “Perestroika”, will demonstrate the connection of each Act Five, Scene Five character, to the actors main character based on the implicit evidence presented in the actors “primary” and “secondary” roles, the scenes dialogue and the character interactions. As one will see, by implementing dual roles, Kushner is able to expand or preserve the concept of a major character while the actor portrays another character, keeping the audience from having to completely renegotiate their knowledge between what they physically see of new characters and actually use the new context to view triumphs and struggles for a major character.
Tony Kushner, in his play Angels in America, explores a multitude of issues pertaining to modern American society including, but not limited to, race, religion, and sexual orientation. Through his diverse character selection, he is able to compare and contrast the many varied experiences that Americans might face today. Through it all, the characters’ lives are all linked together through a common thread: progress, both personal and public. Kushner offers insight on this topic by allowing his characters to discuss what it means to make progress and allowing them to change in their own ways. Careful observation of certain patterns reveals that, in the scope of the play, progress is cyclical in that it follows a sequential process of rootlessness, desire, and sacrifice, which repeats itself.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
The war of September 11, 2001, is war justified? In the case of self-defense, it can be. This was not an act of war, but of terrorism. There were no massed armies at United States doors open ready to take over. The plane bombing of three buildings resulted in many deaths and much monitory hardship. This is not a border confrontation, nor an invasion trying to take over. The body of United States was not in threat of losing life or limb. It was just hit with a well planned attack to wake it up and make it smell the coffee. The resulting bombs and missile attacks in Afghanistan are not justified at all, as people there are dying too. The people dying were not threatening United States with guns drawn. There are a handful of people who are responsible for the attack on United States. It would be warranted to kill those people, if they were actively ca...
Geoffrey Chaucer, went on a journey to Canterbury but on the way there he met a group of pilgrim and tells a story about them. As Geoffrey Chaucer introduced all the pilgrims it helps identify their physical characteristics. Geoffrey Chaucer, nicely portrayed the details of these characters lives during England medieval time period. In the Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer uses physical descriptions to show different characters’ inner nature.
Chaucer-the pilgrim starts out “The General Prologue” with detailed descriptions of each pilgrim as he views them. When Chaucer-the pilgrim arrives at the Pardoner, he becomes very focused on his physical appearance and what is seems to be missing. There is something odd about this Pardoner and Chaucer-the pilgrim can’t seem to grasp just what that is. He describes that the Pardoner is all on fire to do is job, just arriving from Rome (Bretful of pardon, come from Rome al hoot). However, his eagerness to Pardon those for God does not help his physical appearance in any respect. Chaucer-the pilgrim describes his voice as that of a high-pitched goat and points out that he has no facial hair and will presumably never have any, as his face is just as smooth as if he had recently shaved (A vois he hadde as small as hath a goot; / No beerd hadde he, ne nevere sholde have; / As smoothe it was as it were late yshave). Chaucer-the pilgrim is setting up in the reader’s mind that of a prepubescent boy, yet as the reader knows there are no children on the jour...
Throughout Alison’s life, she believed that women had the same rights as a man and that personal happiness did not mean for person to be celibate if not married or view sexual desires in women as a moral sin. Alison’s outlook in life enabled her freedom to marry often and not let society or her husband’s dictate weather she was a capable individual without independent value or worth because of her sex; therefore, she married five times in search of the perfect union. J. Lawrence suggested that the widow Alison used her knowledge of the bible and the teachings of God’s prophets as an excuse for her sexual appetite and multiple nuptials since she saw herself as a mans equal (Vol. 58). The first three husbands that the widow had were old, rich, and loved her dearly. She always had the upper hand in the marriages by using sex as a ploy to manipulate and take advantage of their generosity. S...
Lambdin, Laura C. and Robert T. Lambdin, ed. Chaucer's Pilgrims: An Historical Guide to the Pilgrims in the Canterbury Tales. London: Greenwood Press, 1996.
In the first few lines, the speaker decides to call Clarinda “Lovely Charming Youth” (4) instead of “Fair lovely Maid” (1). The speaker says that the name will “lessen my constraint” (6). This could refer to the sexual feelings that are holding her back because of the womanly part of Clarinda. “And without Blushes I the Youth persue” (7) tells how the speaker is not embarrassed to desire Clarinda now that she is referred to as a Youth.
Our country was founded on the idea of freedom: freedom from a king, freedom to believe in whatever one wants to believe in and freedom to openly express these beliefs with others. Through careful examination of what the authors during this period of history were expressing, I have found a greater respect for our freedoms. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine are all familiar names to high school students in the United States. However, their principles are not familiar and I was shocked to learn that I had not previously read a majority of the works these men created to provide a foundation for our country’s belief system.