1) Consider what you know about World War I, the current War on Terror and global conflict in general. Then read an article from section I and II (read more if you like.) The hand out entitiled "Why did the US enter WWI" from last week will be helpful as well.
I) WWI
http://teachers.sheboygan.k12.wi.us/tgentine/documents/WWIDebate.pdf
A) bulleted outline of key historical perspectives on the US' role in WWI, requires Acrobat reader
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_75_Notes.htm
b) Describes public opinion and the historical impact of US foreign policy in the Great War
http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/germ-ww1.html
) discussion of US public opinion on American involvement in WWI
II) Iraq
D)"Just War or Just a War" by former US President Jimmy Carter, New York Times, 2003
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EFDE113FF93AA35750C0A9659C8B63
(argues against continued US occupation and war in Iraq)
E) "Fighting a Just War in Iraq" by Joseph Locatone, The Heritage Foundation, 2003http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm251.cfm(argues in favor of continued US occupation and war in Iraq)
F) "A War We Just Might Win" by Michael O' Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, New York Times, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin
(offers analysis of US' effectiveness in Iraq)
2) Respond to the following questions. Include details from the articles and class as evidence of your work:
- What makes a war just?
- Was the US justified in it's decision to aid and ultimately join the Allied Powers in the Great War?
- Is the US' involvement in Iraq just? Compare and contrast these conflicts and the US' role in them.
(Note - this assignment is intended to be analytical and maybe controversial, it's OK for us to disagree, but please maintain academic decorum and respect for one another's views.)
200 word minimum
Please respond to at least one other post
Due friday 3/21 by 5:00 p.m. (we don't have school that day.)
18 comments:
When World War I had began in 1914 wit the Triple Entente Vs Alliance. The Triple Alliance was with Austria-Hungry, Germany, Italy and the Ottoman Empire. The Triple Alliance was with France, Britain, Russia, United States and Japan. The war which is going on today was from September 11. Hijackers had killed thousands American in minutes, by two hijacking planes into the Twin Towers. There is no reasons to kill people just to gain power. Gain power another way. Killing people does not do anything. You have to live with that feelings of killing one person for the rest of your live that much feel terrible. When one country wins a war, they become super power's over the world. This is not necessary, many peoples lives have been taken because of this. War has become like a punishment for when another country has done something wrong, we go after them and kill there people, and
distroy there countries.
The second Article the United States had been justified with its decision to the aid. Many Americans are not happy because they didn't see any just in this war. It was just a waste of time.Americans did not join the war and the United States will loose all there power. From the other art lice,the United States feels they are helping Iraq from humanitarian crisis. killing man people will not save our country. Sometimes we should think of the right reasons for war instead of the bad ones.
Ashley Cifu
Block F
Shaun Quinto
A just war is very difficult to define, because anyway you look at it, killing others can almost never be just. Although, ex-President Jimmy Carter disagrees with me in his article entitled "Just War or Just a War", I believe the war in Iraq is just. He states how war should be a last ditch effort, but it was for us. Obviously, Iraq has ties to terrorism through Saddam Hussein, and that is very dangerous for us. Talking and trying to set a compromise with Hussein would be almost impossible. The US has and always will be a target for terrorism. We are very nosey in other countries problems and affairs, and that makes us a prime candidate for terrorist groups. Even though he is often criticized, President Bush is protecting the people of our country and the rest of the world by going behind the UN's back. Even though the UN doesn't support the war, there have been no terrorists attacks on our country since we entered Iraq. To go back in history, the same is true with the Great War. We were an emerging superpower, and other countries could take that as a threat. Another problem that drove Wilson to enter the Great War, according to the pros and cons of entering the Great War, was the US's economy. We spent hundreds of years before this making sure our economy gained power. IF our allies weren't able to pay back the money we lent them, our economy would crash. Wilson was just protecting the US citizens from a potential attack from a memeber of the Triple Entante and a US market crash. Therefore, both the war in Iraq and the Great war, from an American standpoint, are just wars that protect the citizens of the US. After reading these articles, I can now define a just war as a war that will help and protect a country or countries, politcally, economically, and/or socially from foreigners.
In response to Ashley's comment, the US didn't enter the WWI or the Iraq War to gain power. We joined WWI to save our economy and the Iraq war to protect ourselves from terrorism. Even though we won WWI, the US didn't gain extra power. The only power we gained was the confidence that we can compete with other world super powers.
Cherricka
In my opinion, there is no such thing as a 'Just War'. A just war would be a non violent war that ends with zero deaths. Apparently, that is impossible, so there is no such thing as a 'Just War'. If this was possible it wouldn't be a war at all. In the New York Times article by Jimmy Carter, it was said that a just war would end in an agreement between both or all parties. The war should solve the problem and create a clear understanding of their problems. I disagree with this article because there are other ways to deal with a situation between countries, besides going to war.
The US's involvement with Iraq is not just at all. This war has been going on for 5 years now, and it is unfair to the soldiers, it is unfair to the citizens in Iraq, and it is unfair to the families, here in the US, sitting home and worried about a loved one. No, it was not right for 9/11 to happen, but what are we gaining by forcing troops to stay overseas doing nothing. I believe this war was for the pain the US faced, but at the end of the day who do you think won?
In the article "How did World War One change the way America looked at the world?” it was said that the US involvement in WWI was a waste of time. I completely agree. The US is always trying to get their nose in something. Since day one, the US has been putting their two percent in everything. Even if they are not physically in the war, they always have to say something. I wish there was one war where the US just fall back, and let who ever fight it out.
I agree with Shaun Q when he said a just war is hard to define because either way you look at it there will still be deaths and violence.
Detailed in American Textbooks, Americans entered World War I, to help out the French and British, because at the time they were losing the war. She brought into the war a fresh supply of trained troops who had not been exposed to months of trench warfare, which ethusiastic and prepared to bring the war to closure.In this case, America did have a right to enter the war because it was losing the money it had invested in Britian and French. However, America should have just stayed nutral, like it said it was and mind it's buisness. A current war, the war in Iraq is to me, unjust and usless. America said to have went into Iraq because of the inhumane treatment the citizens were suffering under the Iraqian goverment. However,George Bush should have known this because he was good friends with Osalma a generation before. It seems as if America was just trying to develope more demorcracies in the Middle East, while economically benefiting from their oil and other goods. Now that we discovered the reason. Is liberating a country a justified reason to invade and demolish it? At first, about three to four years ago , when the war was just errupting, I said, "war, please... they are bluffing". But than when I seen a building full of women being bombed, it blew my mind. Why would America , a country with morals, be bombing places tha they know are filled with people? Woman and children in fact. We call the Taliban immoral for placing the women in the buildings, but what do we call America? Most wars turn out to be unjust and illegal , for the reason that most wars aren't fought over the people's security , but instead over resouces and Egos. Yes we know that Bin-Ladin had said some stuff about having and buildning nuclear weapons. However, the United Nation was already taking care of that. He had violated a list of United Nation's laws, which had made Iraq a national outcast and Iraq suffered the punishment of inspections. The United Nations already took care of it and told the Unites States to mind its buisness. So why didn't the U.S listen? The purchase of alumium and Nigerian uranium doesn't mean they are building nuclear weapons. Hello. We need more proof. The U.S went into Iraq without having it properly check for weapons first. It sent more inspectors after they invaded than before. Does that make any sense? Five years since America's been in Iraq and what have we found? Dead bodies and missing body parts. The American government uses 9/11 propagonda to try and persuade us, the citizens ,hat we are actually doing work in Iraq. 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. Most of the terrorists were from Afghanistan. Don't be fooled. I can go on and on about the War in Iraq... but it's just my opinion. I disagree with Shaun , a tad bit. When there is a country that holds such power like America, it should be able to be the big brother and meditate international problems. I am not saying that America shouldn't have held concern about the immoral treatment in Iraq, but what they are doing is only making matters worst. If I were to live in any third world country, I wouldn't mind America stinking its nosey behind in my country's affair, unless they are doing it to better humanity , not its ego or economic statues.
oohh.. This is KHADIJAT.lol.
Loretta Au
What makes a war justified is the basic reason for it. In the article “Just War – or a Just War?”, Jimmy Carter explains the just reasons to be involved in war. the article explains that a war should always be a last resort. All nonviolent options should be fatigued before war should take place. Therefore, the war in Iraq is considered unjust because there were existing nonviolent alternatives. The U.S was justified in its decision to aid and ultimately join the Allied Powers in the Great War because it was an act of self-defense. German U-Boats were causing US deaths, and Germany also violated Neutrality Acts. Germany was causing violence and insecurity around the world, and they could not be trusted. Also, if we had not joined the war, U.S would be in debt. The Allied Powers were losing greatly to the Triple Entente. The US had been sending supplies to France. If the Allied Powers lost the war, France would not be able to pay the US. If the US had no joined the war, the Allied Powers would’ve lost, and the US economy would’ve decreased drastically. The war in Iraq is justified because it was due to a terrorist attack. The US did not start the war by any means. Invading Iraq was to further protect the US.
Response to Ashley Cifu
I agree that war is a horrible decision that leads to many deaths. However, like Shaun said, the US didn't enter either wars to gain power. The involvement in both wars was to protect the US and it’s economy.
A war between nations, or even within a nation, is a state of armed conflict over an irresolvable issue. The violence often results in extreme number of deaths and destruction. There are very few circumstances in which a war can be considered just. In the case of the United States’ war in Iraq, there is certainly no justification. Nonviolent methods and proposals from the United Nations and the Security Council were unfortunately ignored and war was declared despite raging opposition. Jimmy Carter, former president of the United States, pointed out in the article, “Just war—or a Just War?” that the war in Iraq was preventable and, ultimately, unnecessary. “Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.” However, there have been wars within the history of America that were justified. Though the United States was subject to Neutrality Laws, we needed to join the Allied powers to protect our nation’s economy. Loretta brought up an excellent point when she said that the U.S. would’ve fallen greatly into debt had we remained neutral and uninvolved in the war when the Allied powers were seemingly losing. The U.S. involvement in WWI was considered necessary in order to keep the country from an economic depression. I also agree with Loretta that the U.S. was acting on self-defense. Essentially, a just war is exactly as Jimmy Carter stated--- the last and final resort. Why choose to fight and kill hundreds of thousands of people and spend billions of money if there is a peaceful alternative?
Many people argue that no war can be just because war is violence and murder. I wholly disagree with this. War can be just if the war is fought for the right reasons. The current war in Iraq is just because the American army is fighting to better the lives of the Iraqi people after liberating them from the cruel totalitarian rule of Saddam Hussein. A just war is a war which is fought to better the lives of people.
The United States was justified in its decision to aid, and ultimately join, the Allied forces in World War I. Germany had been fighting a dirty war in which innocent people's lives, including those of American citizens. This ultimately led to the justification of the United States' involvement with the Allied Forces in World War I.
The United States' involvement in the war in Iraq is also justified. We liberated the Iraqi people from the cruel rule of Saddam Hussein. He is a man who would kill people all the time. Our intervention is an amazing thing for the Iraqi people. We have developed aid and benefit systems to give the people a better life. This is a just cause, making it a just war.
In response to Shaun, how can one say that the killing of others is never just? Do you feel that people like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il should be left to do what they did? And what about the people who commit acts of terror, such as hijacking planes and flying them into landmarks, killing thousands? Should these people, and all those who support their ideas, be left to carry out acts of terror? Killing can be justified, both inside and outside of war. Death is a part of life, and must be accepted, especially if an individual brings it upon themselves through heinous actions.
Karmila Saulong
Block F
The articles by Jimmy Carter, “Just War- Or Just a war” and “How did World War One change the way America looked at the world?” describe the injustice of Iraq and World War II. Carter explained that war should be the only and last resort for solving a problem. A war can’t happen because a country demands a war and plans to attack their enemy, but there should be international support. Also, “the war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants”. The attackers must have authority over what they do. The solution must clear and improve the situation that exists between the countries. The US was justified when deciding to aid and join the Allied Powers during World War I. However, the article refers to WWI as a “waste of time”. America become isolated and turned away from the world. Instead of solving worldly issues, the world’s peace was at stake and the US refused to join the League of Nations. “America had seemingly derived (gotten) from the war was debt, inflation, prohibition, influenza, and ingratitude from Allies” according to Jimmy Carter. Without the involvement of the US, WWI would not have ended. The US played a vital role in defeating their enemies. The US involvement in Iraq is unjust because America is using their military power to influence another country into doing what America wants. Carter pointed out that there are certain things that a country must consider while entering a just war and America has failed to do the fair actions during war. There were many alternative options for America but instead the US chose to be at war with Iraq. As for the violence and military, America has chosen many military targets to be near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes and has been a deep concern for the leaders. Carter believes that world peace can not be attained after this war especially since the war efforts will not be stabilizing the government of Iraq.
Short Response: Connor and I share the same view about America being just when aiding the Allied Powers. However, I disagree with his views on America's involvement with Iraq. Many innocent civilians suffer in Iraq because of the war. People who support leaders like Hussein should be the ones to suffer.
War has been practiced for so long, and it's simpler form, fighting, is practiced daily by humans and animals alike. It is perfect human nature to fight and wars are brought upon by this. Because people have such large and intelligent brains, they have their own differing opinions, causing opposition from other people. Agreeing with Conor, every war that the United States has entered has been for the right reasons, although many people die, its just the way human's are. It's horrible to think about it in that respect, I must say. Jimmy Carter in the article "Just War or Just a War" believes that war ismost definately just.
Melissa Coughlin
Ama Kwakye
HMMM!Defining a JJUUSSTT war is a vage question because what I think is just , you may think is unjust. Nonetheless I am strongly against war so nothing is just about war to me. "Fighting a just war in Iraq" is defintaly by the title a negiative side of me. THe Iraq war isnt just because the defination of a just war is guided by the truth, reason, justice, and fairness but till this day I still dont know the exact reason The Americans and Iraq's are at war. Just like today so many people were against the United States aligning power in the Great War. If a great percentage of people disagree with war then if all of them together can try to put an end to it. I hope Obama wins. Obama on a television said last week if he wins he will take all the troops out of Iraq by the next year. Yes yes, thank you. I sometimes wonder if the Iraqi's have some say in the war and plus many innocent Americans and Iraqi's are getting kilt everyday. Conor said that we are protecting Iraqi's from Saddam Hussein, but seriously how can we say Americans are really protecting them and not really going there for natural resources.We dont really need to show we have so much power by having wars.
Tarina Meaders
3/23/08
F Block.
Everyone has their different views about war, especially when it comes down to the reasons on why countries are fighting that specific war. World War I is known to be the War to End All Wars, but it definately was not. Every country has its conflicts and difficulties and sadly, war may be the only way to put them to a stop. Personally, i wish that was not the case but some of our greatest leaders have begged to differ.
Whether or not confrontation in the form of war is just, will always be a world wonder. But,War is not just. Killing innocent people is not just, on both sides, in any situation.
Americas war with Iraq has been a consecutive skirmish that is still impacting the lives of Middle Easterns and Americans alike. With that being said, I'll answer the question asking if the U.S. and Iraq war being just. It is more than obvious that this 5 year war was caused by the random September 11th attacks. America is a very defensive country because our safety is always at stake, it is evident that our country it more than powerful and many other disgruntled countries would love to take that from us.The Iraq war is not just even though we have reasons to want to retaliate against a country that supposedly harmed us. When it comes down to blaming Iraqi terrorist groups for the 9/11 tragedy that raises other suspicions of the attacks being a set-up by the Bush administration so that our country would have a reason to go to war.Either way, it did not have to come to desperacy of killing others and ruining another countries peace and serenity. War is usually the last resort when it is felt that there is nothing else that can be done to solve a serious conflict, but if no one thought that hurting others was a way to come to an agreement, violence would be out of the question.
As for the U.S. joining the Allied powers, i feel it was necessary and just. Every country is vying for new power and new strength everywhere they go. So why not ours? making allies has obviously done wonders for our country for today so it seems like they were thinking ahead.
Ciara :]
Defining a “just war” would be extremely difficult because everyone has different opinions on war and what can be considered just. Both war and what is just are extremely controversial topics, therefore defining a “just war” would be nearly impossible. In my opinion, war can rarely ever be just. In most cases there are other ways that a problem can be solved, and all many different attempts should be made for a solution before a war is started. Unlike Shaun, I agree with Jimmy Carter in his “Just War or Just A War” article. War should not be turned to unless it is impossible to avoid. And when it comes to the Iraq war, I feel it is not just at all. America definitely had a reason to try and fight terrorism. But starting a war in country was unnecessary. In the article Jimmy Carter gives several reasons why a war should be considered just, and I agree with him on most of them. All nonviolent options should be attempted, and even as the war is waged it should be fair in every way. It seems that history repeats itself, especially when it comes to US involvement in war. In the article “How did World War One change the way America looked at the world?” the article states that as an outcome of the war, America was only negatively impacted. Therefore, it is probably true that being involved in the war was a waste of time. Some other students have said that America became involved to avoid an economic depression. But as a solution of WWI, America was in extreme debt. So, war was definitely not a solution to the problem. In history, and during modern times, America has unnecessarily become involved in wars hoping that it would solve a problem. But rarely is war ever the answer, as we have learned in the past.
Dereks Blog,
There’s really no such thing as a “just war”. A just war wouldn’t be considered a war because there will be no violence involved and no deaths involved as well. If such a thing was possible this would be an argument between the countries or parties involved. There would be no fatalities and nobody would get injured. I disagree with the New York Times article by jimmy Carter. In this article it stated that war should solve the problems and create an understanding of their problems. For example the war in Iraq in my views is not a just war. This war is not just because many people in Iraq support the regulations of terrorism. Also this wouldn’t be considered a Just War because the people in the Middle East would of never attacked or soil, and as a result a war broke loose. This war has been going on for about five years now and we still haven’t found a solution to end the War on Terror because Terrorism is not only in the Middle East but its Worldwide. I agree with Cherricka because I believe that this war is unfair and unjust. In my opinion this war would not end anytime soon because Terrorism can happen anywhere at anytime. I also agree with Shaun as well because a just war is hard to define because in a war there is always going to be fighting and there will always be bloodshed and tensions between different people in the world.
Yasmeen Sweatte
3.21.08
F Block
Blog Post: "Just war-or Just a War" and "How did World War one change the way America looked at the World" by Jimmy Carter described the injustice similarities of both World War I and War in Iraq. Jimmy feels as though war isn't the answer to ever situation, he also feels as though World War I is a "waste of time". The U.S. isolated itself and instead of solving important issues in the world, peace became something hard to obtain and,, the U.S. refused to make themselves apart of the League of Nations. If the U.S. wouldnt of joined World War I the war wouldn't of ever ENDED. But, one cant really say the same about the war against America and Iraq because, the U.S. isn't helping out during this war, instead the U.S. is harming innocent people. On the hand, it's interaction with the war in Iraq seems unjust as well. For the most odvious reason that, the U.S. is using their military to force Iraq to do as they demand. One thing that Jimmy pointed out that caught my attention was, the fact that the U.S. has ignored the proper form of how to enter war. Carter strongly believes that there will never be PEACE shared by both Iraq and America because, it started off in an unjust way and, is still that way today...
Response: I agree with Conor that there are many innocent people in Iraq that suffer during this war, but the ones who should suffer is the ones who support Sadam Hussein. I also agree with Ciara on the fact that, the U.S. involves itself in UNNECESSARY wars thinking it would help to solve the problems that are occuring.
Ashley - S-: Your blogs are getting stronger, but you didn't really evaluate wether or not WWI was justified, a key aspect of this assignment.
Also, keep in mind that the occupation of Iraq is questioned by some as the Iraqui government was not directly responsible for violence enacted by Al Qaeda.
Shaun- E-: Thorough and supported post. Yoru response to Ashley seems to contradict itself - if the US wanted to comepete as a superpower isn't that the same goal as gaining power.
Cherrika- E-: Analytical and informed. It's clear you gave a great deal of thought to the topic at hand.
Kadijat- G: This is a passionate post that makes an effort to address a variety of moral and political issues. I appreciate the content you approach but think some of the arguments are so high-level and often misunderstood that you sould develop one or two of them in further detail instead of loosely alluding to so many. Overall, great work.
Loretta- E- Thoughtful, informed and concise, but I feel you could have dug even deeper and provided more of your own analysis.
Connor- E-: Thoughful, detailed and informed. I challenge the concept that everyone who dies in war deserves it, but am pretty sure that's not exactly what you meant.
Tiffany- E-: You're all making such insightful comments that it's difficult for me to make suggestions for improvement. I wonder what a peaceful alternative could look like?
Melissa- N: This is passionate but doesn't reference the artciles or meet the word/comment requirement.
Ama - S+: Thoughful and provocative, but when making controversial indictments like "the US is waging war for natural resources", it's important to try and show evidence.
Tarina - E: Interesting read on WWI - that it was a preemptive grab for power. Even more interesting that you think the same of the US' current conflicts but that the conditions of the war are less justified as there are discreptencies in human rights policies on behalf of the US.
Ciara - G+: You make some very astute arguments, only the fact of the matter is that WWI did improve the US economy.
Derek - G-: Thoughtful analysis of the conflict and your peers' posts, but I'm left wishing you worked more directly with the articles. Always include a summary.
Yasmeen - G: Solid arguments, analysis and presentation of key ideas from the articles.
Ciara - G-: Thoughful and analytical but somewhat inaccurate. The period immediately after the war is generally regarded as an economic boom (the "roaring twenties.")
Derek- S+: Thoughtful but your understanding of Carter's article was a little off (he opposes the Iraq war).
Yasmeen - G-: you picked up on key arguments from the Carter article that other students missed out on. Unfortunately, you didn't respond to a peer.
Post a Comment