War and Peace
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
(William Pitt, 1783)
This powerful statement brings into reality the depth of feeling that can bring a nation or a people to war. As we study wars of the past, we can see individually, the major factors as to why the war was waged. For example, nationalism, alliances, and military strategy are cited as the main causes of World War I. World War II can be attributed in part to the Great Depression. The Vietnam War was the U.S.’s attempt at supporting the South Vietnamese government against a corrupt North Vietnamese government. We are now in the midst of not only one war, but two; one with its roots in an attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and one as a result of Saddam Hussein’s failure to disclose weapons of mass destruction, as per his agreement with the United Nations.
We cannot effectively study the causes of war and come to conclusions about each, without delving into the human mind and heart. While history shows that each incident is fought for different reasons and with different intent, each cause can be linked to an underlying need for power, a need for freedom, a need for expansion or even a need for survival. Wars are also based on a need to be right or even righteous, as well as a need to hate. War then is not just a matter of X happened, so Y must happen. It is deep-seeded in the feelings of every human, and can be traced back to their perceived need.
No matter what side of the proverbial “line in the sand” you stand on, war, to you is devastating. No matter what the reasons or how well intended they may be, war’s lasting effects can be numbing. That leaves the question, “Is war avoidable?” Are we to spend our lives on this earth on a constant roller coaster of war and peace?
While it seems like someone is always at war, one can argue the existence of a utopia--argue whether or not a utopia has ever, or will ever, exist. It has been defined as, “an ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.” While I don’t believe that true utopia can ever exist on the earth, I do believe we can only be at peace with one another if we study and learn form the past.
Levy, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. Causes of War. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.
In our world today, there are still some wars especially in the Middle East. I think that really not good for developing and have much more bad effect for people who live around the war. According to Peter Herborn “World War I was supposedly the ‘war to end all wars’, but it ushered in a century characterized by more destructive warfare” (67). I think the author want to express
War is a mean to achieve a political goal.it is merely the continuation of policy in a violent form. “War is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument....” Moreover, the intensity of war will vary with the nature of political motives. This relationship makes war a rational act rather than a primitive and instinctive action, where war uses coercion to achieve political goals instead of use it only for destruction, and it cannot be separated from each other even after the war has started, when each side is allowed to execute its requisite responsibilities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to emerging
There have been sustained attempts to understand the nature of war. Carl von Clausewitz in his posthumously published book ‘’On War’’ (1832) concludes with the sentence- “War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will”. In basic terms reciprocity and use of force, according to him, are the central elements of any war. However, I strongly feel that every war is deep rooted into many layers of complexities rather than any two identifiable central elements. Whether one wages a war for instinctive rather than deliberative reasons (choice vs. survival) or as a means to an end, it involves a fight not just between armies, ammunitions, states or geographies but also between sentiments, emotions, lives and homes. Any war is never between two armies or states alone, it is the struggle of millions who may not be out there on the battlefield but are nevertheless
The Russian epic War and Peace hails as one of the most highly acclaimed novels ever composed. Written by Leo Tolstoy and first published in 1869, the novel presents itself as a panorama of Russian society during the Napoleonic Wars. Throughout the work, Tolstoy illustrates the divide between the reality of war and the naïve and false perceptions of battle perceived by those who know only peace. War and Peace offers a vast depiction of individual struggles against immorality and social conflict. Lack of interest in the common good and the selfish detachment of Russian aristocracy from the toils of reality act as prominent elements in the story. The structure of the novel entails a shifting focus between different characters, namely Countess Natasha Rostova, Prince Andrey Bolkonsky, and Pierre Bezukhov. The three major characters each experience an internal transformation in response to the war. In the story, the encroaching conflict causes the characters to evaluate their previous ideals, morality, and affectations. The inclusion of Tolstoy’s somewhat controversial reflections on the history in the work contrast with the traditional methods used by historians. However, the novel proved widely popular upon its release to the public. War and Peace addresses the artificiality and separation of Russian high society, even in the wake of destruction, as a social dilemma and demonstrates the impact of war upon humanity.
I would like to explore the concept of love, the dichotomy of the masculine/feminine perspective and how it relates to the two short stories. Also I will explore the ideas of “phantoms” or in other words the imaginary idealization and objectification of the characters.
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...
History is full of people fighting against one another and going to war for all types of different reasons. For the most part countries go to war to either protect their way of life, or for a better way of living. We want to preserve certain aspects of life like our rights, as well as helping others gain or maintain them, we also want to be able to prosper as a country. When one or some of these things are threatened a country will go to war. Some wars that fallow this trend include the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War. Besides protecting or bettering life, war can also make or break a countries economy.
War can be defined as “an active struggle between competing entities. It’s truly hard to tell who is right or wrong during a war. Both sides are fighting for what they believe in and what is true to their heart. In the end there is always two things promised – destruction and death. These two objects can explain the result in every facet of war from the physical to emotional.
War is one of the few constants throughout human history. It is a method of self-defense or of establishing natural rights or of resolving issues not rectified through the use of diplomatic methods of peace. It has reached every nation and every time period, and despite what some may believe it is a morally justifiable action.
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by man. There are many reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party, war is the last remaining option. Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun wrote in fourteenth-century Spain, that “War is a universal and inevitable aspect of life, ordained by God to the same extent as the sky and the earth, the heat and the cold. The question of whether to fright is not a significant moral question because fighting is constant; the minor decision not to fight this war will be made only in the context of knowing that another war will present itself soon enough because it is simply always there.” (Peter S. Themes. The Just War)
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by the human race. There are many different reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party and anger burns with a fiery passion, war is the last remaining option. Obviously, the purpose of any war is to win. How are wars won? Perhaps if we were to ask a member of the Defense Department during the early stages of the war in Iraq, his answer might be, “To win this war we must force the enemy into submission by means of ethical warfare.” If we were to ask a marine in the Second World War what he was told by his commanding officer he would reply, “To close with the enemy and destroy him.” (Fussell, 763).
War has the capacity to foster love while equalizing social status. The novels The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje and A Town Like Alice by Nevil Shute substantiate the fact, through fiction, that during war-time men and women who are not of the same station in life can find an incomparable love with one another. Each novel also gives evidence of love igniting during war and surviving the trials of time and distance. Hana and Kip from The English Patient and Jean and Joe both go through these trials and tribulations associated with love and war. Whether that love is doomed for failure or a future together forever…it never dies.
War has been around for centuries. From the time modern civilizations began, war has played an integral part in human history. It shaped the world into the modern world we live in. War has been said to be a great motivator, for example, the Great Wall of China was built to fend off the attackers from the north. However, the negative aspects of war far outweighs any positive effects it might have. The destruction of civilizations, cities and countries, mass killings of men, woman and children alike, the disastrous effect it has on economy and the after effects of war can last for centuries.
Collective security is one type of coalition building strategy whether global or regional in which a group of nations agree not to attack each other and to defend each other against an attack from one of the others, if such an attack is made. The principal is that "an attack against one is an attack against all." It differs from "collective defense" which is a coalition of nations which agree to defend its own group against outside attacks. It can also be described as a system where states attempt with its use to prevent or stop wars. Examples of Collective defense are NATO and the Warsaw Pact .The United Nations (UN) is the best example at an attempt at collective security. Many nations enter into such an agreement in an effort to maintain the status quo and to secure their best interests. Collective security is achieved when states come to an agreement on the need for same. As a result an international organization is formed under the rules of international law. The collective security organization then becomes an arena for diplomacy, balance of power and exercise of soft power. The use of hard power by states, unless legitimized by the Collective Security organization, is considered illegitimate, reprehensible and needing remediation of some kind. This idea of collective security was posited by people such as Immanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson. There are a few basic assumptions as it relates to collective security, including , In an armed conflict, member nation-states will be able to agree on which nation is the aggressor another basic assumption is that each member state has freedom of action and ability to join in proceedings against the aggressor. Also of great importance is the fact that all member nation-states are e...