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 Wardiscussion of US public opinion on American involvement in WWI
http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/germ-ww1.html
c) discussion of US public opinion on American involvement in WWI
II) IraqD)"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, 2003
http://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 minimumPlease respond to at least one other post
Due friday 3/21 by 5:00 p.m. (we don't have school that day.)
27 comments:
^
|
i dont love harden, really! he posted that
i'm super tempted to post right now.
Teresa Konopka
AP US
*Sorry Jakub, but you snooze you lose.
At the dawn of the First World War, some wanted to fight, while others did not. Woodrow Wilson felt that the war should be fought. He stated that Germany could no longer be trusted and that innocent American lives were at stake. Conversely, George Norris disagreed. He felt that Germany was a neutral country, and that putting soldiers in war would disrupt the economy since some soldiers had to be paid.
When it came to the actual public opinion of the war, many saw it as just a waste of time. Many Americans felt that Europe had not changed much and that Wilson was making hyperboles of how vastly the continent had become hostile. With the treaty of Versailles, it was established that the League of Nations would be held responsible for keeping peace. Wilson interpreted this as a means for him to go to war. In his mind—and evidently in his speeches—Wilson felt that going to war would keep the peace and secure stability.
Since America was comprised of immigrants, some of them were from Germany. They blatantly refused the war and pleaded for some sort of neutrality on the United States’ behalf. However, their efforts were in vain. Instead, the US government began shutting down German newspapers, being highly stereotypically racist towards German-Americans, and allowed vigilante groups to abuse Germans that were pigeonholed as spies.
In terms of war today, Jimmy Carter feels that it should be used only as a last resort. He states how the United Nations should have been consulted more in such affairs, and that the United States did have some diplomacies in Iraq that were not of terroristic agendas. Just bombing the nation along with innocent Iraqis is just wrong. Carter acknowledges the issue of nation security, but feels that more restraint and peace talks should have been utilized.
Joseph Loconte has a different paradigm on the war in Iraq. He completely supports it and admonishes all critics of the war. In his opinion, the war offered aid to Iraqis and helped the innocent live without fear of terrorist groups living nearby. He also notes that bombings made in Iraq were “smart.” Apparently, they were issued with special engineering so that they would only hit desired targets, averting any unwanted innocent casualties. In Loconte’s eyes, America is just helping Iraq and quelling / mitigating terrorism in Iraq.
Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack feel that America has finally began to make some progress in Iraq. They mention how soldiers have helped with much needed construction. They also state how soldiers are beginning to work harder with a newfound sense of morale since they have more new proactive generals to lead them. They also say how Iraqis are beginning to feel safer with American help to fight terrorist groups within Iraq. They feel that Congress should continue the war until the soldiers have established complete peace in Iraq (basically: keep up the hard work!).
Many are uncertain about what makes war just. There is really no solid correct answer. War is war and it becomes justifiable by whoever holds office at that current time. Subjectively speaking, Wilson was justified in his going to war. Battleships were sunken by German ships, killing many Americans. Also, America had to keep its reputation of being a superpower. Also, the US did win in the end. As for today, subjectively, the US is also justified in the war in Iraq. During 9/11, many innocent lives were taken, and the US had to take action. Also, by sending soldiers to Iraq, America is withstanding its superpower prowess in the Middle East. Just backing down and claiming to remain neutral would just make the US seem akin to a pushover.
Question to AP peers:
How do you think history would have changed if the US had lost the First World War?
LOOOOOOOL. that was great.
Michelle Shed
Block B: AP US History
Well, second's always the best! = P
According to the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of war is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Although the definition is true in all political and military aspects, I view war as a method of protecting a country's national sovereignty. I regard war as a way to portray a country's nationalism and military power. Yet, I believe war should be waged against other parties or nations in the cases of threats against a country's sovereignty, threats to international or regional stability, or/and the dealing of nuclear weapons and biological weapons.
One of the greatest wars in our nation’s history was The Great War, also known as WWI. President Woodrow Wilson felt that the nation needed to aid the Allies, certain other European nations. However, there were men like George Norris who agreed with George Washington’s Farewell Address and believed that America should stay out of European affairs and let Europe solve their own problems. He also believed that Europe would become a burden to the United States because of their constant demand for military help. It’s understandable why men such as George Norris and many Americans scorn war. War affects every gender, citizen, wife, husband, mother, father, brother, and son. During World War I, women joined most of the workforce while men were out in the ranks fighting the Germans. Patriotic soldiers are risking their lives fighting for their country while other nations might benefit from their deaths. One of the reasons George Norris did not want the United States to enter the war was because soldiers may lose their lives and their loved ones suffers over their deaths. He also viewed war as soldiers fighting for financial aspects. During WWI, soldiers received sixteen dollars a day compared to large financial benefits to war industries. George Norris did not view a human’s life to be worth sixteen dollars.
Wilson, on the other hand, felt that it was necessary for the United States to aid Europe against the Germans. I believe that the United States was justified in its decision to aid and ultimately join the Allied Powers in the Great War. In 1915, a German u-boat attacked a British ship called Lusitania and killed 128 American passengers onboard. That was the final straw. The United States was not seeking revenge. The United States wanted peace, so no one else would suffer from the gore of war. The United States didn’t want to enter the war, but with killing of innocent people, Germany violating Neutrality Acts, the sinking of neutral vessels and violating the Sussex Pledge, the United States had to seek action. I believe that regional stability is extremely important. What would have happened if the United States hadn’t intervened? German u-boats would have sunken even more British ships and killed even more Americans. Germany was also attempting to make ties with Mexico to invade the United States. This is a threat against our national sovereignty! At that time, Mexico was going through a cultural revolution. They were collaborating with the Germans to bring down democracy and attack us. It was for the safety of our citizens, nation, and democracy that we join the Allied Powers and helped bring down the Germans. The Germans may have been able to sink the Lusitania, but they will never be able to sink democracy. Not as long as America is still a patriotic nation.
I honestly do not mean for my opinion to offend anyone. Yet, I consider myself different from other students in the fact that I support the War in Iraq. When I think of the War in Iraq, I think of the Germans who killed the innocent 128 Americans aboard the Lusitania and I think of the Germans collaborating with Mexico to bring down democracy. With the war in Iraq, it’s Iraq, Iran, and other Islamic nations collaborating with Al-Qaeda to bring down democracy in the United States. Just like Mexico wanted to spread communism in America, the radical Islamic extremists want to spread Islam throughout the world. The Germans killed 128 Americans in 1915. On September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda killed over 3,000 innocent Americans. Ironic, isn’t it?
Our nation believed that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons. When U.S. and U.N. weapon inspectors wanted to head inside Iraq to see, Saddam Hussein did not allow our nations to pass through his country. However, our national sovereignty was in danger. Even if Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, there were plenty of biological weapons. There were also many Islamic extremists working with Al-Qaeda that were hiding in Iraq. I admire Loconte and his “ Fighting a Just War in Iraq” article. I agree with him over the fact that the United States is not intentionally killing the civilians of Iraq. However, when there are suicide bombers dressed in civilian clothing who use guerilla warfare tactics on our soldiers, what are they supposed to do?
According to an article from the Washington Post titled “Shift in Tactics Aims to Revive Struggling Insurgency” by Amit R. Paley, The Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq is doing everything in its power to make sure that they regain popular support in the western province of Anabar, where Sunni tribes have turned against the organization and begun working with U.S. forces, according to group leaders and American intelligence officials. This group is led by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir. The group is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and declares allegiance to Osama BinLaden’s Al-Qaeda terrorist network in 2004. This is a terrorist group that reprises women and wants to bring down democracy and wipe Israel off the face of the map.
The Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq are dangerous and must be stopped. An AQI operative was arrested in Turkey in August 2005 while planning an operation to target Israeli cruise ships. In Lebanon, the Palestinian militant group Fatah al-Islam (which was defeated in the 2007 Lebanon conflict) was linked to AQI and led by Zarqawi's former companion who fought in Iraq. Our nation is dealing with terrorists who want to govern those who do not wish to be governed under Islamic fundamentalist conditions. These are the terrorists who punish women who do not cover their heads. Ogaidi, 39, once traveled with 20 bodyguards in a four-vehicle convoy. But during the recent interview, he was nearly alone, wearing a white cap on his baldhead and a gray dishdasha, or floor-length tunic, to disguise himself as a poor villager.
"We made many mistakes over the past year," including the imposition of a strict interpretation of Islamic law, he told a Washington Post special correspondent. Al-Qaeda in Iraq followers broke the fingers of men who smoked, whipped those who imbibed alcohol and banned shops from selling shampoo bottles that displayed images of women -- actions that turned Sunnis against the group.
Well, I believe that our country made no mistakes about entering this war. I believe that I shouldn’t have to explain my reasons for supporting the war after everything that I have written. So far, our country has given women voting rights in Baghdad and gotten rid of a despot. We started this damn war and our country should sure as heck finish it.
Teresa: If the United States had lost the First World War, then maybe we would have never had the great depression. I know that one of the main reasons the Great Depression occurred was because of recycled war reparations from England, France, and Germany.
In both WWI and the Iraqi War the citizens of the United States have had different opinions. During both periods many supported the war with because they were bombarded with propaganda and easily fooled. And in both case the United States have suffered greatly.
WWI wasn't a just war because the United States lost greatly in the long run. The US was forced into the war but it could have been avoided. Instead of wasting money on helping the Allies, with attempting to be sneaky, the US could have worked on problems inside the country. US ships had no place in the middle of a European War. Woodrow Wilson and George Norris were two intelligent men who knew what the outcome of the war was. Although the US lost the least number of men and only participated for half of the time we still payed $33 billion for an unjust war. We had helped the Allies but I don't see any good evidence of the Allies helping us anywhere in history. The reason we joined is because of the fear that Germany might become a threat. Although the outcome was in out favor, Germany still became a recognized power after rebuilding. It was a matter of time before the Germans became a recognized power and it took us one too many times to stop them. The problem with having an opinion on an issue like this is that living in America we are bombarded with pro American propaganda, then and now. It would be interesting to learn of the German p.o.v. and then debate.
As with WWI, The War in Iraq is also unjust. It takes two to tango and a group of people doesn't start hating the US randomly. We have had a history in the Middle East and till today we haven't solved any issues, just started new ones. Is it so difficult to notice that we aren't wanted on foreign lands? We have invaded countries that live on oil and apparently we control these wells. So why are gas rising and rising? Our excuse for going into Iraq is because they have WMD. But they didn't and won't. We have killed Saddam Hussein who hasn't done anything to us. We think that
just because we are powerful that we can do as we please. That is the reason terrorists threaten this country and that is the reason why the War in Iraq is unjust.
Teresa:
If the United States lost WWI then Germany would have gained extreme power and would have been even more powerful then it already was. More casualties would have died as the evil Germans launched a massive conquest of Europe. They would have conquered Europe and worked their way to Syberia (in the summer of course) and began to destroy the non-yet-advanced Asian culture. After conquering Europe and Asia the Germans would have walked across the Bering Land Brigde and easily manipulated the Canadian Army to join forced and destroy the US, which would become the United States of the Wiener Schnitzel. If the US lost WWI we'd be speaking German, ew. auf Wiedersehen!
http://www.youtube.com/v/EZy04Knmhgc&hl=en
please note the video above is more than two years old...
and rachel ty for not posting <3
Kudos to the friendly competition but will delete the nonsense by Friday, leaving it up just long enough for the entire class to see, but not long enough for anyone else to notice.
I LOVE THIS CLASS!!!
Theresa - E : thoughtful, detailed and analytical - way to balance out all the perspectives!
Michele -E : you never need to apologize for a political opinion. Excellent points that are substantiated in your post.
Jakub- E- : analytical and historically detailed, but I'm left with the impression that you think WWI was somewhat justified - you say in your conclusion that if the Germans had won many more casualties would have resulted from the war - wasn't that the main justification for US intervention in 1917?
Theresa - E : thoughtful, detailed and analytical - way to balance out all the perspectives!
Michele -E : you never need to apologize for a political opinion. Excellent points that are substantiated in your post.
Jakub- E- : analytical and historically detailed, but I'm left with the impression that you think WWI was somewhat justified - you say in your conclusion that if the Germans had won many more casualties would have resulted from the war - wasn't that the main justification for US intervention in 1917?
LOL.
Elizabeth Che
AP US History Block B
Both World War I and the War in Iraq involved expenses, deaths and a certain anti-(insert specific nationality) sentiment as would any other conflict. Under the threat of overrule and destruction of democracy, the US readily enters war by any which means necessary including propaganda to sway public opinion. As Michelle mentions, German destruction of the British ship Lusitania and French ship Sussex fueled tensions and anti-German sentiments within the United States however, it was not until the intercepted letter between Germany and Mexico had President Wilson decide to act. Meanwhile, the Iraq War was sparked by terrorist actions and the necessity to protect the citizens from further dangers. War should only be justified if it is used as a last resort. Even though it is Congress who declares war, citizens are used as the power to fight and shouldn’t be sacrificed for every little problem.
Based on the WWI Debate pdf, George Norris, the senator for Nebraska from 1913 to 1943, was noted to disagree with American participation in WWI. Surprisingly, Great Britain was the first to declare areas off limits hence, Germany was not at complete fault. As both Great Britain and Germany violated Neutrality Laws, the US should not have taken any sides as neither were completely innocent. Another point mentioned was how the US wanted Europe to keep out of American affairs yet the US is constantly found involved in foreign affairs. The website, German-Americans and World War I tells of German-American and Irish-American favor of neutrality and sufferings due to their opinions. Due to the increased publicity of German aggression towards US, the general public was swayed to harbor anti-German sentiments which led to unfair treatment. As the website states, even “the legal system backed the suppression. Juries routinely released defendants accused of violence against individuals or groups critical of the war.” As shown, fear and hatred are ugly expressions that leads to heightened tensions and unjustified cruelties. However, even if the US remained neutral, the continuous losses of merchant ships would develop hatred anyhow.
Meanwhile, The New York Times article, “Just War -- or a Just War?” by Jimmy Carter tells of the Iraq War being unjustified. As Carter explains, “war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist.” As the article further details, the United States was noted to harm innocent civilians while the real fugitives remained hidden and safe. Such tactics can be seen as uncivilized despite the American belief of civilization throughout the Imperialist Age. As carter states, “The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.” True, the attack on September 11th was also brutal however, if the United States was to pave the road to democracy and all which it stands for, our actions should also show it. As the saying goes, “action speaks louder than words.”
Then again, “Fighting a Just War in Iraq” by Joseph Loconte tells of the heroic deeds of American soldiers and efforts to protect civilians, “most major news networks showed images of U.S. Army forces rescuing an injured Iraqi woman caught in the crossfire on a bridge at Hindiyah.” Advanced equipment such as satellite-guided bombs are used to lower the chance of injuring citizens. Medical attention is also noted to be given to fighters of both sides. As Loconte explains, “According to news reports, between 60 and 80 percent of all casualties so far have been Iraqis, who are receiving medical care right alongside injured Coalition forces.” Respect to Iraq’s customs are taken heed and damages to the country’s bridges, power facilities and water treatment centers are avoided. The deaths of the many civilians and soldiers were not the only issues of concern, the aftermath of the war also uncovers more problems. Carter states that “Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.” Even if a war starts out being justified, that action may not be right in the very end.
Response
In response to Teresa’s question, had the United States lost in World War I, Germany would be more feared as Jakub mentions and the US would be nothing more than another country. The power that the US has over affairs today results from the military successes and ability to maintain itself so, if there was a loss other countries wouldn’t see America as a threat or anything powerful.
Jakub, the video you included was quite informative and true. Money shouldn’t be used so easily but be put to better causes than supplying a war.
John Harden
Block B
Posted on March. 19th, 2008
The opinions on what exactly makes a war just vary greatly in many degrees. One example of an extreme view is evident in the philosophy of King Frederick the second of Prussia whom ruled in the 1700s. Frederick believed that it was up to the leader of a country to stretch its borders as much as possible for the sake of the people. When described as the man, whom single handedly defeated the Austrian’s, combined a torn apart Prussia, and gathered all of Poland, one thinks of him as an evil war monger. To the surprise of many, Frederick during a time period where conservatism littered the streets, held many liberalist viewpoints. These include spreading education to the masses and calling for the utmost amount of religious tolerance. Ultimately, despite his enlightenment values, Frederick believed any war is justified and the winner of a war should do what he or she pleases. This proves that a person does not have to be insane to promote strong foreign policy. This belief of war being just in all aspects is correct for the most part, but the line of justice is overstepped slightly. War is just only when one nation is in great need for resources, more land or has been threatened by another nation.
This case of joining or starting a war just to gain more land is not evident in the United States’ reasoning behind joining the Great War. The United States of America’s citizens were harmed directly by the German forces. A British Liner, the Lusitania, was sunk by a German submarine with over one hundred American passengers onboard. These one hundred plus Americans died due to the German assault and this greatly outraged the public of America. President Woodrow Wilson would have been able to join the Great War with just reasoning right after the Lusitania was sunk. However, he waited and hoped that the German’s would stop their attacks on American and British merchant ships. This second chance allowed harm to reach even more citizens of America through German attacks. After the United States intercepted a German telegram to Mexico which hoped for an alliance between Germany and Mexico, the United States decided to enter World War I. Not only being threatened by the Zimmerman telegram as it was called but also losing innocent men and women to German U-Boat attacks was more then enough to justify United States participation in World War I.
The United States involvement in Iraq was justified from the very beginning. On September 11th of 2001, a selection of members of the Middle-Eastern based terrorist organization Al-Qaeda high jacked two different planes and crashed them into the Twin Towers in New York City. This suicide attack killed thousands of people working in or around the towers and instantly killed those onboard the planes. The innocent lives of many American’s were lost due to this extremist attack and the security and lives of American citizens were greatly therefore threatened. To protect its citizens, the United States would need to track down the group responsible and dismantle their establishment. They were believed to be in Afghanistan and Iraq and thus the United States deployed troops in both nations and began a search and destroy mission. The leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, pushed many obstacles in front of American troops within his country and thus he was eventually taken out of power and executed for the crimes he had committed towards his people. Under his rule thousands of innocent people had suffered and died. The United States has still not found all the leaders of Al-Qaeda and many lives have been lost. Sadly, the United States is doing a horrible job of establishing a new democratic government in Iraq. Hopefully overtime a democracy will be successfully established and the people of Iraq can flourish and live in peace.
Theresa asks what we think would have happened if the United States had not gained victory in World War I. I believe that the Imperial German forces would have easily disenfranchised any opposition to their cunning and calculated path of destruction. They would have, with the help of the evil Ottoman Empire, defeated not only the French, but the Russians and British as well. Germany would have eventually turned on the Ottoman Empire and probably supported a revolution against the Ottomans by their enemies, the Romanians. Once the whole of Europe was conquered by Imperial German forces, Kaiser William the second would have annexed Romania and Italy and begun a deep invasion into African lands. This conquest of land would never end and the sacrosanctity of Kaiser William the second would never be questioned. I would rather live in an Imperial German world then a Nazi German world, you can trust me on that one.
Sarah Berfond
Block B
The destruction of property and killing of human beings can never be justified. Regardless of the situation and conflict, a peaceful resolution should always be achieved. It is hard to understand how the simple idea cannot be understood by the countries of the world even after millions of deaths over thousands of years. World War I, World War II and the Iraqi conflict cause hundreds and billions of dollars in property damage, millions of lives and unnecessary grief and emotional distress. If the leaders of these countries would put aside their greed, egos and thirst for power, all of the wars could have been avoided.
The outline of the pros and cons of the United States entering World War I list the arguments of Woodrow Wilson in favor of war and George Norris opposed to it. There is no doubt George Norris was correct. He argued that the soldiers who would die are paid sixteen dollars a day while the war industries would make billions of dollars. Norris went on to explain that the pain and suffering caused by war to the soldiers and their families had no price and could not be justified. Ultimately, others would benefit at the expense of the patriotic soldier. Wilson argued that the United States was not seeking revenge or land but trying to establish peace and stability. He said that the Germans were killing innocent people, invading other countries and encouraging Mexico to attack the United States. In opposition, Norris explained that Europe should be left to solve their own problems without American intervention.
The justification given by President Bush and his administration for invading Iraq was that the United States needed to prevent terrorism from spreading and stop Sadam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction. The arguments that were presented were not very persuasive and most countries of the world failed to support the aggression. As a result the insurgence in Iraq and local Al-Qaeda groups gained strength and support from other countries in the region. In the article, “A War We Just Might Win” the successes of the new American tactics are illustrated. However, the article does not say how the failed policies of the United States caused an incredible amount of death and destruction in the last five years. America should have fought for peace and resolution instead of war.
Response to Michelle’s comment: I disagree with your views on war in general and the war in Iraq. There is no reason for lives to be lost in order to “portray a country's nationalism and military power.” The Germans were said to have killed innocent people but aren’t soldiers also innocent? They were merely doing their jobs in order to make money for their families. If the Allies and Triple Alliance had a meeting they could have created a solution and the killing of innocent people and soldiers would have stopped without the United States having to intervene.
Defining a war as just is a delicate topic of discussion, as most wars fail to exemplify reasonable motives. Nonetheless, a just war can only be declared if all nonviolent options were already attempted. If the option of war is the last result then the war must be considered fair and just. With no other ways to reach a just conclusion, war is necessary to achieve the goal one desires. Nevertheless, a just war seems like an oxymoron. The peace claimed in treaties never concludes a war. If anything, war delivers more fear, doubt and distraught within international relationships. Supposedly, one of the several justifications of war is to declare war with the intent to re-establish peace. Yet with the War in Iraq happening right now, peace is evidently no where to be found.
The US was not justified in it's decision to aid and ultimately join the Allied Powers in the Great War, as they took no steps to peacefully solving their conflict with Germany. As said in former President Jimmy Carter’s “Just War or Just a War”, a just war required the attempts to exhaust all nonviolent options. In this case, America failed to peacefully settle their issues and immediately jumped to war. Germany fueled controversy once they killed several innocent Americans by attacking the ship Lusitania. In addition, America began to grow suspicious of Germany and its threat to America. Thus, for the safety of our country President Wilson chose to join the Allied Powers in order to bring down the Germans. Otherwise, the United States of America had no business or reason to fight in the Great War. As a result of WWI, America did not even join the League of Nations nor stabilize peace as they planned to.
“Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.” The United States involvement in Iraq was justified during the immediate aftermath of 9/11, yet five years later is just a bit too long. Indeed, the United States had a solid reason for occupying Iraq, as the country was undergoing serious turmoil within the government and its people. However to this day, the United States should hand over the conflict to the United Nations since that’s what its there for. In response to Sarah, the United States needs to learn and recognize when to stop intervening within other countries. The War in Iraq has gone out of proportion, and the United States should focus more on its personal problems. If we were to stop playing Dr. Phil, perhaps the United States could focus more on enhancing the value of our dollar.
Justin Lefkowitz
AP US History
B Block
It is pretty hard to think of what actually makes a war just, but there are a few important things that must be present for a just war to take place. One thing that makes a war just is the reason for why the war is being fought. Another thing that makes a war just is the way in which it is being fought. Random people shouldn’t be killed, but the soldiers who are trying to kill you should be killed. Just as long as these two things are present, a war is almost guaranteed to be just.
The US’ decision to aid and ultimately join the Allied Powers in the Great War was just. They had a good reason to enter the war originally and they fought the war in a just way. When the German U-Boat intentionally sunk the Lusitanian, about 128 US citizens died. One reason why the US wanted to help aid the war was because of the sinking of the Lusitanian. Another reason why the US decided to go to war was because of the German spies that were in the country. Another thing that helped sway Woodrow Wilson to go to war was the Zimmerman Telegram, “a telegram from German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmermann to the German Ambassador in the U.S. which said that if the U.S. were to enter the war, then German would align itself with Mexico and attempt to help the Mexicans reclaim Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.” If the US wanted to protect themselves from the Germans, they had to enter the Great War. I believe it was a just decision because I feel that if the US did not enter, the Germans would have fought a war against the US to take the lands that were stated in the Zimmerman Telegram.
Before I answer the question is the US’ involvement in the Iraq War just, let me ask you this: “Was the bombing of the World Trade Center justified? How about the 2,974 innocent civilians who died in all of the terrorist attacks?” Now can you answer this question? The Iraq War was made so that we could stop terrorism and the production of WMD’s in Iraq. It is to also spread Democracy. The US in this war is also being backed by several strong nations, including the one recognized by all, The United Nations. This war in Iraq is definitely just. It is also just for the way in which we are fighting it. When we are fighting this war, the US soldiers are not trying to kill the Iraqi citizens, but rather their soldiers. The US is actually trying to supply the Iraqi citizens with benefits including food and health care. How do people say this war is not just? If anything we are not fighting it hard enough. The US is being too nice about the war. Why don’t we just go in there and bomb everyone. Iraq is causing a lot of problems for the US. There is a solution though. Level the land and make it the new home grounds of the United Nations.
In Response to Teresa’s Blog:
If the US had lost World War I, we would be much weaker than what we are today. We wouldn’t have as much land because Germany would have taken it in their Treaty of Paris. We wouldn’t have the lands that were stated in the Zimmerman Telegram: Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. As a result of the US losing the war, there might not have been a World War II because the German Empire would have already been an empire and they would not have needed any more land.
Ashley Aydin.
AP U.S. – Block B
--------------------------------
There are some individuals who do not question war. Then, there are those who voice their opposition. Some people have believed that war is not just inevitable but desirable. It is adventure and excitement that brings out the best qualities in men - courage, amity, and sacrifice. For a nation - respect and glory. Nonetheless, there are many pupils who are not particularly enamored by war. They deem it as horrific and unreasonable. Is war just or unjust? The query has continued to stay rather controversial and popularly debated. Wholly, the many viewpoints of conflict, the glorification of battle, and the general desire for autonomy and conquest, have played vital roles in defining what war truly endorses.
--------------------------------
How did World War One Change the Way America Looked at the World? by the Social Studies Help Center explains the opinions on World War I and how numerous measures influenced American society. “Wars between nations come form contacts. A nation with which we have no contact is a nation with which we should never fight”. Generally, Wilson aimed to stay neutral. However, heated events led to the United State’s participation in the hostilities. On February 25, 1917, Arthur Zimmermann, Germany's foreign minister, proposed an alliance between Germany and Mexico in the event that Germany would declare war against the United States. In return for support, Germany would help Mexico to recover New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. This was a direct threat against the United States. Furthermore, on April 2, 1917, the date that the United States officially declared war, German submarines sank five American ships. Many historians and citizens use these two events as justifications for the American involvement. Had the United States not become involved, the stalemate, standstill, may have continued for even longer, resulting in an even more extreme amount of deaths, casualties, and loss of life due to disease and/or the instantaneous effects of combat. “The war to make the world safe for democracy [also known as the war to end all wars] had not made the world safe for democracy, nor had it ended wars”. Despite the obvious explanation of the United States joining the war, for international peace, protection, and unity, I do not believe that the U.S. should have been active in WWI. Frankly, our participation only added to the violence and brutality experienced. Instead of fighting and causing more conflict, we could have stood united and confident in remaining neutral and negotiable.
--------------------------------
Comparatively, Just War - or a Just War? by President Jimmy Carter explains the disadvantages and mistakes that came along with the United States’ War in Iraq.
“The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options -- previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations -- were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday” Seemingly, Carter believes that there are many alternatives to restoring Iraq other than war. Likewise, he doesn’t seem to agree with the U.S. occupation, regarding the length in time. “What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations”. As the war continues, Americans are predicted to loose hope and pride in their nation, as efforts are not being enforced to pull troops out of Iraq and other surrounding territories. Is the United States seeking oil or peace? Commonly, the war has been looked down upon, seeing that many soldiers have lost their lives and little to no change has been made concerning Iraqi politics. Thus, the United States has been criticized for false outlooks.
--------------------------------
Similarly, World War I and the War in Iraq share the connection of being highly discussed and disliked. Because both battles have included a great number of causalities, mistakes, precautions, and supposed “loose morals”, they have remained in U.S. history as major occurrences. Furthermore, the question of U.S. imperialism has also been highlighted. As a constant power that enjoys flexing its political and economical muscle, the United States has been accused of corrupted involvement – the only goal proving invasion. Ironically, the proceedings of past wars have recurrently ended up in favor of our nation’s goals. With the situation in Iraq, citizens can only continue to voice their judgments and take action.
--------------------------------
Specifically, a war’s
justification depends on whether or not the battle is aimed toward the independence of the state, the enslavement of the state, offensive causes, and defensive causes. Some also believe that in order for a war to be just, it is necessary that the enemy nation had menaced an injury that could not have been repaired without warfare, and which is so serious that the evils of war are less than that of toleration. Religion and background can also influence how an individual views war. The laws of nature, therefore, play a significant role in how wars come to be and end. Like every other act, war is not morally good, unless its object, its purpose and its circumstances are in accord with right. But, what is right?
--------------------------------
*I disagree with Michelle’s comments about the War in Iraq. With all of the resources and capital our country has, why couldn’t they have restored Iraq fully up to date? Also, the current administration has been linked to various oil pools and corporations for internally fraudulent reasons. Therefore, I believe that the War in Iraq is being publicized and fought for reasons “under the rugs”. I also uphold Sarah’s response on the increase in casualties and the decrease in national support - both of which are making matters worse.
Marco Muniz
AP US HISTORY
What makes a war just?
War can only be just when there is humanitarian crisis like genocide occurring, UN support and diplomatic failure to stop the crisis. “The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted,” states Jimmy Carter.
Was the US justified in it's decision to aid and ultimately join the Allied Powers in the Great War?
The US was completely justified in its decision to aid and ultimately join the Allied Powers in the Great War, as Central Powers’ aggression put national security and democracy at risk.
In the beginning of the Great War, the US attempted to stay neutral, but the actions of the Central Powers made this increasingly difficult. Germany’s submarines attacked any target in neutral waters. Thus, American lives were bound to be lost, and this occurred with the sinking of the Lusitania and many other ships. Furthermore, Germany was attempting to ally itself with Mexico pledging support for another Mexican-American War to obtain lost territories from the first. Also, the central Powers’ despotic rule threatened democracy and more importantly the world. Without US help, the Allied Powers might’ve lost the war putting other nations like the US at risk in the future.
The reasoning against US intervention was outright timidity. “More innocent life lost by German Aggression b/c we failed to take their warning and obeyed GB,” stated George Norris. No US ship should have to travel in fear because of another nation’s aggression, and Germany’s attacks on US ships only show their disrespect for the rules of War. No Neutral nation should be attacked by those involved in the war! “Patriotic Soldier has a lot to lose, while others benefit.,” Norris stated. Yes, soldiers will be lost, but not in vain. This war was going to be the war to literally end all wars, as Wilson was working to establish the League of Nations to allow nations to settle disputes diplomatically. Plus, if the Central Powers’ won, their power would’ve threatened national Security in the future. Thus, a future war with the Central Powers would’ve likely led to more American deaths than American deaths in WWI. The final argument to stay out of European affairs is unintelligent. The US was and is always going to be involved in European affairs like trade, so anything that happens in Europe is of US interest. Lastly, the US lent billions of dollars to the Allied Powers. How would the US have been paid back if the Central Powers won? US intervention was justified and needed for the security of the world and democracy.
Is the US' involvement in Iraq just? Compare and contrast these conflicts and the US' role in them.
The US involvement in Iraq isn’t just for countless reasons, and there is really no reason for continued US occupation of Iraq. The only thing just about the war is “general” following of the Hague and Geneva conventions and the spread of democracy.
March 20, 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom begins illegally and with misleading reasoning. For one, the UN didn’t allow for such a war, and “by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace,” stated Carter. Two, there was never any clear evidence linking Al Queda to Saddam’s administration or that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. No weapons of Mass Destruction or a link between Al Queda and Saddam’s administration were ever found to this day. Three, national security will always be at risk because of terrorism, so war on terrorism reasoning for war isn’t impartial or moral. Finally, the only moral but still illegitimate reasoning for war was to spread democracy and end the Iraq Government’s human rights abuses. Still, without UN support and strenuous diplomatic effort to stop the abuses, the war remains unjust!
In the articles “A War we Just might Win” and “Fighting a Just War in Iraq”, the writers claim the Iraq War is just, as the US is following the Hague and Geneva Conventions and most importantly making progress. “It is difficult to recall any previous modern war being fought with such a sustained effort to protect civilians from combat and to minimize the harmful effects of war on their daily lives,” states Joseph. Loconte Before the war, Coalition forces and other organizations went into Iraq and set up areas to provide proper humanitarian relief effort. The military was also careful with the bombings in the beginning of the war, respecting mosques, private homes, power facilities and other places essential to basic human need. The article also claims the US follows proper geneva convention protocol with prisoners of war, meanwhile Iraq’s Abu Grahib and Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay completely contradict this. The war is also supposedly just, as Iraq’s security and ability to defend itself is improving. “In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.” However, analysts and presidential candidates like Barrack Obama claim this is slow progress, because if the US never kept soldiers to defend Iraq, the nation would’ve reformed faster to defend itself. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if a nation follows the rules of war, it only matters if the nation fights a just war!
How do you think history would have changed if the US had lost the First World War?
If the US had lost the First World War, I believe life would be similar to Oceania in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. With limitless despotic rule given to the Central Powers, there is no doubt these nations would’ve conquered the world. The only thing that would’ve prevented a modern day Oceania would’ve been successful rebellions before the Central Powers’ governmental rule over nations like the US grew to strong. This would allow for another maybe successful war for democracy.
Was WWI a just war? Well, for many living at that time it was. However, the country was very divided on this issue, just it is today with the issue of the Iraq War. WWI began in 1914 with the egos of many European counties going out of control, resulting in battles that killed millions of people. The US, at first, remained neutral inorder to protect its soverignty. During this time, the US economy was at an economic high, by trading with both sides of the war. US merchant ships traded with Germany, as well as England and France. Wilson knew just waht he was doing by remaining neutral, but still trading with both sides. He was making creating a stable economy, which made many trade port cities, such as New York and Boston, flourish. However, due to inhumane acts on parto f the German side, the US was dragged into the war. In this sense, the US deserved to be in the war because the Germans bombed a US trading ship for no apparent reason. They did this knowing that President Wilson did not want any of the US's ship being bombed or searched by German soldiers. (Because the US was technically neutral)Also, the Zimmerman letter made a dramatic impression on the minds of both US citizens and President Wilson.If Mexico had followed through with Germany's plan, the uS would have been bombarted from both the Eastern angle and the Southern anlge. Therefor, the US was kind of forced into the war by Germany.
However, today the situation is completly different. Iraq didn't do anything to provoke war, where as the German's provoked war in the early 1900's.Granted the governement was corrupt, it was not our job to go in and lead a revolt in Iraq. If the people were truely unhappy, they could have led their own revolt, the US did not have to go in and spread our own form of democracy in a country that clearly didn't want it.
Was WWI a just war? Well, for many living at that time it was. However, the country was very divided on this issue, just it is today with the issue of the Iraq War. WWI began in 1914 with the egos of many European counties going out of control, resulting in battles that killed millions of people. The US, at first, remained neutral inorder to protect its soverignty. During this time, the US economy was at an economic high, by trading with both sides of the war. US merchant ships traded with Germany, as well as England and France. Wilson knew just waht he was doing by remaining neutral, but still trading with both sides. He was making creating a stable economy, which made many trade port cities, such as New York and Boston, flourish. However, due to inhumane acts on parto f the German side, the US was dragged into the war. In this sense, the US deserved to be in the war because the Germans bombed a US trading ship for no apparent reason. They did this knowing that President Wilson did not want any of the US's ship being bombed or searched by German soldiers. (Because the US was technically neutral)Also, the Zimmerman letter made a dramatic impression on the minds of both US citizens and President Wilson.If Mexico had followed through with Germany's plan, the uS would have been bombarted from both the Eastern angle and the Southern anlge. Therefor, the US was kind of forced into the war by Germany.
However, today the situation is completly different. Iraq didn't do anything to provoke war, where as the German's provoked war in the early 1900's.Granted the governement was corrupt, it was not our job to go in and lead a revolt in Iraq. If the people were truely unhappy, they could have led their own revolt, the US did not have to go in and spread our own form of democracy in a country that clearly didn't want it.
sorry! i published twice on accident :D
Jeremy Smith
APUS
What justifies a war? Comparing World War I and the War in Iraq, it basically shows that the threat of several countries can influence a war. Take for example the possibility that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction in their hands: President Bush sent in troops to secure this possibility. However, soldiers are killed everyday because they are feared as a "larger" threat than what the US thought of Iraq. When the US entered WWI, regardless of the sinking of the Luisitania, Germany's gigantic ego began to show. Whenever the US sees that a country begins to become a threat to the world, with attacks on weaker nations, the US keeps on eye on that country. However, the US is the largest super power country in the world. Why can't any other nation stand up against the US? It is out of fear. If a country, however, attacks a British vessel with American citizens or destroys two American towers, the US goes into direct war. Why is that? It's because the US fears that, if attacks continue, the whole country would cease to exist. The only fear that Americans have is if Freedom is taken away, but, what constitutes as freedom? Judging by all of these articles, the US had mixed views in both wars. First, World War I brought about anti-German acts of expression, which were highly constitutional, but were brought harshly to German-American citizens. Second, the War in Iraq has a totally mixed view: some are for the war (which I find completely ridiculous in the first place because of the "threat" of WMDs at our doorstep at one of the failing countries of the world. However, economy went up after the capture of Saddam Hussein), and some are against it (saying they support the troops, but they do not support the war.) As I do recall by a famous American, Franklin D. Roosevelt, he once stated, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Just by reading this statement, the fear of liberty being taken away, the fear of conflict, or the fear that the US itself gives off could be the fear that America is scared of.
Elizabeth - E; Fantastic job summarizing the main ideas of these articles
John- E-: Thoughtful and informed, but keep in mind that the Kaiser was a gross violator of human rights.
Sarah - E : Informed and analytical, I'd like to see even more refences to the articles.
Heather - G: Thoughful, but lacking the detailed analysis you genrally contribute to the forum.
Justin - G+: Insightful work, but there are a few inaccuracies in your post: the UN is not a nation and it does not support the US' position in Iraq. Interesting points on WWI, though.
Ashley- E: Detailed and well supported ideas. Nice work.
Marco - E: this is really compelling. I really appreciate the 1984 comparison.
Veronica- G: Thoughtful work, but more academic details would strengthed the post.
Jeremy - G: Compelling points, but you neglected to comment on another post.
There is nothing on the surface of this planet that makes a war just. War is an extension of land and resource hungry politicians looking to obtain power, wealth, or recognition. The act of war is dirty, lucrative, and sickening, as are the people who support it. The United States’ entry into World War I was NOT justified at all. Yes, it is understood that the Germans attacked the submarine Lusitania, containing American citizens. Yes, it is understood that the Germans were committing horrible atrocities in Europe. However, the United States was a country with a policy of isolationism and neutrality. Even George Washington, in his farewell address, stated that Europe should be left to solve its own problems. The United States copped out in World War I. After sending many men to fight for the country, they decide to turn their backs on the world AGAIN, by not signing the Treaty of Versailles or joining the League of Nations. Isolationism was only favourable when the United States could show off its power, so it seemed. The exact same could be said for the United States’ involvement in Iraq. The entire “war on terror” is a concept that personally, I still do not understand. There cannot be a war on an adjective, that’s just ridiculous, but that is what our government calls it. Sure, thanks to the United States, some infrastructure is starting to take form in Iraq, but at what cost? We’ve killed hundreds of thousands of people while only 4,000 soldiers of our own have been killed. Many “terrorist” organizations still prevail in these parts of the world and will not be or cannot be stopped, no matter how much force the military places into these regions. Just the fact that there ARE people who are resisting change keeps our military from destroying a culture and creating a more “western” nation.
I also agree with the point Jakub makes about going into Iraq hunting down these "weapons of mass destruction" but to no avail! what a shocker! This whole mess actually, could have been avoided, had Nixon not had his Watergate scandal.
Late, as usual...
Nothing could ever justify a war. The mass amounts of killing and cruelty that are a result of petty power squabbles over resources, alliances, or "defense," are not only unnecessary, but disgusting. The United States had absolutely no reason to enter World War I. With such a high foreign-born population, in fact, they should have made an extreme effort to stay away from the war completely. Instead, the economic stimulus America experienced from taking a side in the war influenced what should not have even been a decision. When Germany began blockading Britain so American trading could not come through, the fear of loosing such an important trading partner enticed America into entering the war.
The United States' involvement in Iraq is certainly not just. It may have seemed like the only option at the time, but no war is ever justified. Many claim the "kill or be killed" factor that seemed evident when entering war; Iraq had WMDs, they'd use them on us eventually, so we should go in now. The fact remains, however, that Iraq had to have a reason to use them on us.
Whenever my little brother starts crying and tells my mother that my little sister hit him, my mother will ask, "Well, what were you doing right before she hit you?"
Nine times out of ten, the attack was provoked.
Put in this perspective, therefore, and it is easy to see that no war is justified and, in fact, the elimination of war is the highest goal in society. For not only will the there be no bloodshed and massive killing, but if you could attain, personally, to act in a way that would not provoke any violence against yourself, then that is a high standard for humans to set for themselves.
Does that make sense?
Post a Comment