Problems of Military Drones The United States’ battle against terrorism forces this nation to exert violence upon its enemies. However, peace in foreign countries will not be achieved if America risks the lives of innocent civilians to assassinate its criminals overseas. Therefore, America must eliminate the use of drones in international strikes. Those in support of using drones conclude that they bring the least consequences to this nation. They will say that using drones for global attacks allows the US to reduce its military damage and protect its troops from danger (Foust).
Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory. The system the UN currently has offers some perspective on the idea of conducting and participating in war.
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 also believe that the only reason that the United States is gong to war with Iraq is because they believe that the United States is only going to war to have control of the oil that Iraq contains. Many people “claim that casualties will be too costly for America to afford” (War). On the other hand, I disagree that nothing will be gained because by going to war with Iraq it will give the United States a better chance to find weapons of mass destruction, therefore having a lesser chance of a terrorist happening in the United States. I also disagree that the United States is only going to war with Iraq just to have control of the oil that Iraq contains. I strongly feel this way because if the United States where only in the war to control the oil that Iraq contains I believe that they would have already used force to go out with such actions.
Instead, Bush needs to swallow his pride and except his unawareness of warnings and consequences, then informing the blindly persuaded citizens the poorly hidden truth. Eventually weapons of mass destruction will strike the U.S.A., and will be tragic. Until then the United States needs to make their decisions wisely and take more opinions into consideration before making the final decision of launching military action. Overall the United States should only pronounce war when the situation determines war is justified, rather than proceeding with war when there is no evidence backing up justification. Whether the war is for the protection of the United States and it’s alliances, or for oil and the spread of democracy, the United States needs to make decisions that would influence the future of the Nation in a positive way.
A person might think of a Utopian Society to escape their situation but they do not look at the disadvantages, let us take killing, for example in a Utopian world, killing someone is illegal. If we do not kill anyone, how are we going to find food to keep ourselves alive? We have to kill. Negative aspects of humanity’s basic nature are jealousy, greed and revenge that would always interrupt us from making a perfect world. Would utopian society exist, if the religion and superstition die?
The second situation is when the ri... ... middle of paper ... ...apons, a person may feel that they chemical weapons are immoral. In times of war morals are put the test not only on personal levels, but for countries as a whole. Decisions have to be made that may go against what an individual believes for the better of a country as a whole. Although soldiers may believe one way, they will not be able to express that belief unless it coincides with the belief of their country. All decisions will be made without consent of the soldiers, and regardless of what the solders personally believe, the missions will be carried out and the morals of individuals will be disregarded.
One reason why the US shouldn’t intervene in genocide happening in other countries is because both countries can be hurt by it in many different ways, such as physically and even economically. In dozens of Washington post interviews with the Iraqi people, their attitude towards the United States intervention isn’t what would have been thought. They said “their lives were safer and more prosperous under Hussein and that the U.S. invasion was not worth the price both countries have paid (Sullivan 2).” If this is the case why would we interfere where we are not needed or wanted. Which is a waste of a lot of the U.S.’s money for no reason and possibly lives. A New York Times article also said “.
To derive to the point, O' Brian is saying there is no real war story if the audience feels that killing people had made a big and better consequence. To look back upon the Vietnam war it brought Vietnam to it's knees. The Americans assisted someone who asked them not to interfere and in the end there was no winner. The Americans had nothing to gain by fighting this war. The title was a contridictary of how to tell a true war story.
The Iraq war has been a very sensitive and divisive issue in today's society. Although we can not ignore the cloud around this administration when it comes to potential incentives that going to war presented, (such as oil for profits and retaliation to Saddam Hussein for the Gulf War and treatment of President Bush Sr.), I will look beyond these potential motives to explain why the U.S. involvement in the Iraq War was unjust simply because it doesn't fall into any of the four functions of force authored by Robert J. Art. The United States ignored the U.N. guidelines for peace, as well as its public protest against the war, to strike Iraq with an unprovoked attack. A war fought on the premise that this country had ties to Osama Bin Laden, was harboring terrorist, and had nuclear ambitions.