Why Americans Should Not Go To War
magine yourself living in New York City in 2001. Your father headed out to work early so you didn’t have the chance to say “goodbye.” You continue your day as usual and head to school. Later that day, you see adults whispering with worried looks on their faces. On the news, you see on the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground. That was where your dad worked. Your mom becomes an alcoholic as a way to cope with grief from your father’s death, and you grow into a depression. This was the case for many people on the day terrorists bombed America which was 9/11. There are multiple ways to win a war, but targeting civilians should not even be considered an option as a way to do so.
During war, people who are fighting should only attack those who …show more content…
are fighting back. If those who are not in combat are attacked, then that would violate their basic human rights of protection and safety. According to this approach, only military forces, guerilla forces, and anybody who declares to help injure others, except if they are doing it for selfdefense, are appropriate targets. Children, elders, and the sick are usually always inappropriate targets, because they are not physically opposing the country’s enemy. A group of people who came to be known as the Geneva Convention gathered together to discuss how to perhaps end the mistreatment of war victims.
The Geneva Convention took place in 1949. This document addressed the treatment of prisoners of wars, civilians, and other groups. It was ratified by a number of countries, yet it is often disobeyed. Terrorists mostly only target civilians, and the U.S. today sometimes attacks civilians, too. Convention IV of the Geneva Convention states “...civilians are afforded the protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded in the first Convention to sick and wounded soldiers… Specifically, it prohibits attacks on civilian hospitals, medical transports, etc.” From this, it can be said that even leaders agree as a whole that harming civilians should be prohibited. The problem is that when countries or military leaders violate these codes, it often goes unnoticed until the very end of the war.
War crimes, as worded, is when somebody breaks the standard rules of war. War crimes include murder, slave labor, ill treatment of prisoners of war, killing hostages, torture, destruction of cities and villages, and attacks not reasoned with necessary military use. This category of crimes had to be issued in the first place, because certain countries were being ruthless with the treatment of innocent civilians or people in general. Furthermore, official leaders have agreed to note that innocent peoples are on both sides, but unfortunately, they are the ones getting killed.
In war, civilians of the enemy country may not even support the actions of their country.
Civilians do not have control over what their country does. Since it is like that, civilians do not have a say in whether or not their country should go to war, because it ultimately depends on their leaders. A country does not vote based on majority if they should go to war, so civilians cannot possibly influence the military actions their country makes. Nonmilitants do not have a large enough influence to dictate their country’s ultimate choices.
In World War II, America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with an atomic bomb. Fleet
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, states “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” The civilians of Japan had no say in their country’s military actions and that caused their deaths. United States had no reason to kill the millions of innocent lives in the first place, and if killing civilians had not been an option, those lives could have been saved as well as future radiation poisoning for generations to …show more content…
come.
Certain ethnic groups of civilians are also targeted in war and it would be more productive to focus on the innocent civilians that are in danger than the innocent civilians that are already safe.
Labor camps and concentration camps often take place during war. At these camps, the people there are killed, forced to work like slaves, starved, and greatly punished if they disobey the rules. They are told false truths, such as “Work for your freedom” when in fact, they absolutely have no intention of letting them go. Forcing innocent people to go to these camps easily happens in war. For instance, the Holocaust, a raid by Adolf Hitler, killed more than 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and others in concentration camps. The way they killed these people, too, was brutal. They were burned alive, put in gas chambers, and shot at for target practice. Countries at war can turn on their own civilians, and can even see them as equal as the enemy. It is better to rescue them rather than to kill them. This is more reason to go after the actual enemy rather than the whole country itself. When part of a race, religion, or group does something wrong, we enlarge it to the entire race, religion, or group which is a wrong, because they obviously do not all share the same opinion.
Killing civilians contradicts not only our written rules, but our natural human morals too.
When the World Trade Center was hit on 9/11, America mourned in agony and were furious. In response to the attack, the U.S. started to raid Afghanistan in less than a month. The United
States sent out troops to hunt down the men who did this terrible deed, but many civilians were killed along the way. Although the hunt for the terrorist group ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria, is for a good American cause, the sacrifices America is undertaking is causing a great toll on the civilian population.
The Middle East body count significantly outweighs the United States body count. It causes people to question just how much we are willing to do to find the few who attacked us on
9/11. The numbers of the 9/11 death toll was 3,000, and the “War on Terror” resulted in over
210,000 deaths in the Middle East. The United States is hunting for ISIS which is good, but are unfortunately harming civilians along the way.
It is just as immoral to kill those innocent people, because it contradicts with our standards. The goal isn’t to attack and kill, it is to only take down the guilty targets while causing as little damage as possible.
Similar to the Geneva Convention, killing civilians violates the international humanitarian law. West Bank leader of the reformist wing of Fatah states, "We are fighting an occupation that violates [international humanitarian] law every day." Furthermore, Former highranking Jordanian official says, "Stop the injustice that makes me tolerate [attacks against
Israeli civilians]." Army leaders get their orders from their boss (president, dictator, etc.). The power ultimately lies in their hands, and they don’t see for themselves just how many lives they are taking, whereas, those who are out on the field do. With that being said, they have a different perspective and a more detailed ideal of what exactly is going on. This could be a cause for the huge death toll simply because of a lack of knowledge pertaining to the reality of war. However, if killing civilians were not allowed, the casualty count would have likely been
smaller.
Attacking Israeli civilians is just as bad as attacking American civilians. It is a human right that is violated if civilians are attacked.
Although people use the saying, “war is hell,” they don’t think about their moral standards.
Instead, they argue that wars don’t have rules, but as addressed before, war absolutely does.
People want to kick Muslims out of America, because many people are stereotyping them into terrorists. Only a small portion of Muslims are connected with a terrorist source, and that it because they are extremists. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump wants to ban Muslims from the United States for this reason, and the people voting for him support his ideal, too. When killing people from other countries, we usually deem it more acceptable whereas if countries attack us, we immediately fight back.
Killing innocent civilians only brings sorrow and lamentation. It is against the written rule, causes even greater hardship for both sides and is plainly unjust and immoral. It leaves physical and mental scars forever on the millions of lives it affects. I am lucky enough to not have been personally affected from this type of hardship, and I can't even begin imagine what it is like to be a victim of a war you had nothing to do with.
During war, people who are fighting should only attack those who …show more content…
are fighting back. If those who are not in combat are attacked, then that would violate their basic human rights of protection and safety. According to this approach, only military forces, guerilla forces, and anybody who declares to help injure others, except if they are doing it for selfdefense, are appropriate targets. Children, elders, and the sick are usually always inappropriate targets, because they are not physically opposing the country’s enemy. A group of people who came to be known as the Geneva Convention gathered together to discuss how to perhaps end the mistreatment of war victims.
The Geneva Convention took place in 1949. This document addressed the treatment of prisoners of wars, civilians, and other groups. It was ratified by a number of countries, yet it is often disobeyed. Terrorists mostly only target civilians, and the U.S. today sometimes attacks civilians, too. Convention IV of the Geneva Convention states “...civilians are afforded the protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded in the first Convention to sick and wounded soldiers… Specifically, it prohibits attacks on civilian hospitals, medical transports, etc.” From this, it can be said that even leaders agree as a whole that harming civilians should be prohibited. The problem is that when countries or military leaders violate these codes, it often goes unnoticed until the very end of the war.
War crimes, as worded, is when somebody breaks the standard rules of war. War crimes include murder, slave labor, ill treatment of prisoners of war, killing hostages, torture, destruction of cities and villages, and attacks not reasoned with necessary military use. This category of crimes had to be issued in the first place, because certain countries were being ruthless with the treatment of innocent civilians or people in general. Furthermore, official leaders have agreed to note that innocent peoples are on both sides, but unfortunately, they are the ones getting killed.
In war, civilians of the enemy country may not even support the actions of their country.
Civilians do not have control over what their country does. Since it is like that, civilians do not have a say in whether or not their country should go to war, because it ultimately depends on their leaders. A country does not vote based on majority if they should go to war, so civilians cannot possibly influence the military actions their country makes. Nonmilitants do not have a large enough influence to dictate their country’s ultimate choices.
In World War II, America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with an atomic bomb. Fleet
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, states “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” The civilians of Japan had no say in their country’s military actions and that caused their deaths. United States had no reason to kill the millions of innocent lives in the first place, and if killing civilians had not been an option, those lives could have been saved as well as future radiation poisoning for generations to …show more content…
come.
Certain ethnic groups of civilians are also targeted in war and it would be more productive to focus on the innocent civilians that are in danger than the innocent civilians that are already safe.
Labor camps and concentration camps often take place during war. At these camps, the people there are killed, forced to work like slaves, starved, and greatly punished if they disobey the rules. They are told false truths, such as “Work for your freedom” when in fact, they absolutely have no intention of letting them go. Forcing innocent people to go to these camps easily happens in war. For instance, the Holocaust, a raid by Adolf Hitler, killed more than 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and others in concentration camps. The way they killed these people, too, was brutal. They were burned alive, put in gas chambers, and shot at for target practice. Countries at war can turn on their own civilians, and can even see them as equal as the enemy. It is better to rescue them rather than to kill them. This is more reason to go after the actual enemy rather than the whole country itself. When part of a race, religion, or group does something wrong, we enlarge it to the entire race, religion, or group which is a wrong, because they obviously do not all share the same opinion.
Killing civilians contradicts not only our written rules, but our natural human morals too.
When the World Trade Center was hit on 9/11, America mourned in agony and were furious. In response to the attack, the U.S. started to raid Afghanistan in less than a month. The United
States sent out troops to hunt down the men who did this terrible deed, but many civilians were killed along the way. Although the hunt for the terrorist group ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria, is for a good American cause, the sacrifices America is undertaking is causing a great toll on the civilian population.
The Middle East body count significantly outweighs the United States body count. It causes people to question just how much we are willing to do to find the few who attacked us on
9/11. The numbers of the 9/11 death toll was 3,000, and the “War on Terror” resulted in over
210,000 deaths in the Middle East. The United States is hunting for ISIS which is good, but are unfortunately harming civilians along the way.
It is just as immoral to kill those innocent people, because it contradicts with our standards. The goal isn’t to attack and kill, it is to only take down the guilty targets while causing as little damage as possible.
Similar to the Geneva Convention, killing civilians violates the international humanitarian law. West Bank leader of the reformist wing of Fatah states, "We are fighting an occupation that violates [international humanitarian] law every day." Furthermore, Former highranking Jordanian official says, "Stop the injustice that makes me tolerate [attacks against
Israeli civilians]." Army leaders get their orders from their boss (president, dictator, etc.). The power ultimately lies in their hands, and they don’t see for themselves just how many lives they are taking, whereas, those who are out on the field do. With that being said, they have a different perspective and a more detailed ideal of what exactly is going on. This could be a cause for the huge death toll simply because of a lack of knowledge pertaining to the reality of war. However, if killing civilians were not allowed, the casualty count would have likely been
smaller.
Attacking Israeli civilians is just as bad as attacking American civilians. It is a human right that is violated if civilians are attacked.
Although people use the saying, “war is hell,” they don’t think about their moral standards.
Instead, they argue that wars don’t have rules, but as addressed before, war absolutely does.
People want to kick Muslims out of America, because many people are stereotyping them into terrorists. Only a small portion of Muslims are connected with a terrorist source, and that it because they are extremists. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump wants to ban Muslims from the United States for this reason, and the people voting for him support his ideal, too. When killing people from other countries, we usually deem it more acceptable whereas if countries attack us, we immediately fight back.
Killing innocent civilians only brings sorrow and lamentation. It is against the written rule, causes even greater hardship for both sides and is plainly unjust and immoral. It leaves physical and mental scars forever on the millions of lives it affects. I am lucky enough to not have been personally affected from this type of hardship, and I can't even begin imagine what it is like to be a victim of a war you had nothing to do with.