The only way to deal with these people [terrorists] is to bring them to justice. You cannot talk to them. You cannot negotiate with them.” There are some cases that would be worth negotiating with the terrorists but every circumstance has its own consequences. As the threat of terrorism grows, some may argue that negotiating is crucial step but it’s actually validating and rewarding their tactics, encouraging more terrorism and providing more resources to the terrorists. If governments were to negotiate with terrorists, it basically means that they are acknowledging terrorist’s tactics and rewarding them for their wicked behaviours.
The Bush Administration’s plan for war in Iraq, violates International laws, furthermore being ethically wrong (Walton). Despite of all the warnings of war, President George W. Bush still tries to convince the United States that war is somehow justified, with his persuasive lies. Although they struggle to justify such an action towards Iraq, war is no and never will be justified. Punishment for such a decision will be the result of loss of allies and the appalling violation of the United States’ historical principle, “never make such an action towards a country that has not harmed America nor America’s depended on allies” (Dudley 28). The consequences, by far out-weigh the positive affects of war.
On top of that, since our country is a superpower, just by asserting a position, others will follow. The U.S. should oppose multilateralism because multilaterlism is a cover for inaction. During the Clinton administration, when the country was at rest with foreign affairs, numerous, useless treaties were made to prevent future wars from occuring. Currently, our country is not in a state of action. There is a war on terror between terrorists and the United States.
In the case of the War on Terror waged by the United States against terrorist attacks the argument of a last resort is debatable. Because the attacks have yet... ... middle of paper ... ...fists can be uneffective in a war minded society. If an aggressor is attacking with no opposition, one cannot rely on the morality of the aggressors to halt the attack. Intervention of the attacks would be impermissible by the standards of absolute pacifism, as it would contribute to the overall amount of violence. The absolute pacifist would become a martyr for their beliefs, and without opposing the aggressive force societies would be annihilated.
People think this way because sometimes they do not know the full story to an incident, and what they know is enough to fuel up the anger and hatred in them. For those people, the question in mind is; why show these criminals any remorse? Torture is exactly what they deserve; it is exactly the right place for disgusting terrorists where they cannot harm anyone. Torture has been outlawed in all circumstances everywhere, but global terrorism may be leading America to bend the rules. American intelligence agents have been torturing terrorist suspects, or engaging in practices pretty close to torture.
They are ultimately responsible for lives lost, monies lost in fighting the war, and a country left in ruins. The war on terror is real and extremely important to our security, but it shouldn’t be used to as propaganda to fulfill special interests. This is a war of individuals, and not of a state, and a war that could not be fought by means of conventional tactics. The Bush administration successfully morphed Afghanistan terrorist Muslims into Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Bibliography 1.
We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world.
Pacifists believe that war and violence of any kind should be unacceptable and that this nation should never be at war. They believe that negotiation and compromise as a way to achieve peace and harmony is a better way to solve conflicts rather than violence. People who are not committed to pacifism sometimes think that the best way to solve a failure of foreign policy is to go war. At times, military intervention is necessary, especially when the target is a person or a nation that threatens the welfare and livelihood of millions of people. It’s also understandable if military action is in self-defense of an imminent threat of our nation.
We feel as though we have been betrayed by Congress.’ Sgt. Dobson believes the military is being hamstrung against an enemy with no reservations or restrictions: ‘It is our overwhelming opinion that we have not been allowed to conduct the war to the fullest of our capability; neither do we feel that we should pull out because of a lack of ‘results.’ War is not a chemistry set with predetermined outcomes or complications. With a great army matched with an equally cunning enemy, we find ourselves in a difficult, but winnable fight. We do not seek results; rather, we seek total and unequivocal victory...[T]here is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight for a cause’.” “Destroying a president is not much of a strategy to win a war, but it’s all the Democrats have.
The failure to apply self-determination to all nations has caused the U.S. to create many enemies in the world and has done more harm than good in our goal of national security. Though we may not feel a great threat from any one nation, the extremist that have spawned throughout the world, most notably in the Middle East, have shown this nation just how vulnerable we are. The multiple embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole and the attacks of September 11th are simply the radicalism we created in our endeavor to create “pro-American” powers. It is in my opinion that we take ourselves off this high pedestal and start acting like a partner in global affairs instead of its puppet master. Works Cited McKay, John p. et, al, A History of World Societies, 8th Edition.