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…
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…
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
During war, people who are fighting should only attack those who …show more content…
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…
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