War Arguement: Should we engage in a war with Iraq?
Throughout time mankind has had many conflicts with each other. Be it of religious, racial or cultural differences or a multitude of many other things, war has almost always become the solution. When looking back at the past, it seems that war is inevitable whenever two or more competing parties do not agree with each other over a common solution. The question at hand is whether or not war is the answer. The current conflict that is taking place between the United States and Iraq is worthy of discussing because people believe that if a peaceful solution is not agreed upon, our two countries, and maybe others may engage in a war. Now, one must weigh the costs and the benefits that we the United States would endure if we were to go to war with Iraq. Would it really be worth it for us to enter a full-scale war against them? I will try to show you why we should or shouldn't go to war by using the Just War Theories model and assess these criteria of it: Just Cause, Last Resort, Reasonable hope of success and Proportionality. The country of the United States would be just by going to war with Iraq if the criteria of Just Cause, Last Resort, Reasonable hope of suc
The criteria of proportionality are that the desired end should be proportional to the means used. This means that if the war in question will do more harm than good then it should not be entered into. In the case of going to war with Iraq, a few good arguments about this area can be made. One is that if we are to send troops into Iraq, will we have a high number of casualties as compared to the number of casualties that we will not have. For example if lost five men out of every ten that we sent in, it would not be just. This is also inversely related to the amount of casualties that our enemy will have. If they were to lose half of all of their men then it would also not be just. It would not be just because would be harming more lives than we would be helping. If it is true that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, which is plainly obvious, we have to consider whether of not we think that they will use them to kill a large amount of people. This would have to be figured out in order to make a decision of whether or not to go to war. "Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons on his own people..." and there is little doubt that he would not use them against his enemies. So if it is plausible that he would use these weapons against his own people, it is pretty much a given that he would use them against our soldiers as well as non-combatants in order to inflict great harm on anyone that gets in his way. Along with the facts above and the possibilities mentioned, the criterion of proportionality has been met in order to conceive a war against Iraq as just. "A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable." A war with Iraq could only be justified if we went into it knowing that we had a strong possibility of winning. It should be understood that it would not be acceptable for the United States to send troops into the country of Iraq if it knew that large percentages of casualties would be had. In the case of war there is and will be casualties for all sides that are fighting the war. The main idea of this particular criterion is that we would not be sending our men in to just simply die but that we would actually p
Some common words found in the essay are:
Saddam Hussein, War Theories, Iraq Intention, United Iraq, Introduction Throughout, Intention Proportionality, Conclusion Thesis, war iraq, Resort Reasonable, Normative Principle, United Nations, criteria met, war theories, saddam hussein, hope success, iraq criteria, war iraq criteria, reasonable hope success, reasonable hope, weapons mass destruction, conflict taking, country iraq, acts aggression, iraq criteria met, possesses weapons mass,
Approximate Word count = 1513
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
