Think about what justifies a nation going to war. If you were a political leader, what conditions would, in your judgment, justify a declaration of war? Write an essay that is at least 200 words long.

S.A for Edmentum and Plato

If I were a political leader, I know there would be times when I would need to consider sending my country to war. I would try to mediate peace through diplomatic channels, but that wouldn’t always work. I think the main circumstance that would make me choose to send my country to war would be a significant, direct attack on my country.

The September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon were significant. An attack like that would probably force me to go to war if I were the US leader. The September 11 attacks, however, were not committed by a particular nation, but by radical terrorists, so that would make things tricky.

Another example would be the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. In this case the attackers were clearly identified and war was quickly and justly declared.

There could also be times when the actions of a country’s leader are so terrible and inhumane to another country—or perhaps even to his own people—that war, supported by certain higher moral beliefs, could be justified. While I know that the sending troops to fight for whatever the reason would be hard, I also know there are times when it could be required.

My Essay:

First of all, I would try to see if I can fix things and have peace without going to war. I think that the conditions that would make me declare war would be extreme. For example, people being killed or an attack on our country. If I also see that the other country is armed and has its army coming I would declare war. I think terrorist attacks won't justify going to war, I would have to see the context of the situation. We can't judge a whole ethnicity for what a single person does, some people believe that making terrorist attacks will fix things in the world but we can't judge the people from their country for the way they think.

As a political leader, the priority would be my people's lives. But there should be no justification for going to war unless the opposing side is harming our country and countrymen, economically, physically, or by isolating you. Major causes or damages to the country would also be a cause to start a dispute but not to start a war because if we compare the money spent in a war it's more than the money that sometimes is spent on the country.

If I were a political leader, I know there would be times when I would need to consider sending my country to war. I would try to mediate peace through diplomatic channels, but that wouldn’t always work. I think the main circumstance that would make me choose to send my country to war would be a significant, direct attack on my country.

The September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon were significant. An attack like that would probably force me to go to war if I were the US leader. The September 11 attacks, however, were not committed by a particular nation, but by radical terrorists, so that would make things tricky.

Another example would be the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. In this case the attackers were clearly identified and war was quickly and justly declared.

There could also be times when the actions of a country’s leader are so terrible and inhumane to another country—or perhaps even to his own people—that war, supported by certain higher moral beliefs, could be justified. While I know that the sending troops to fight for whatever the reason would be hard, I also know there are times when it could be required.

Explanation:

PLATO

aug 15, 2012 - although van leeuwenhoek was not the inventor of the microscope, he advanced it more he loved to grind and focus a new lens in order to see the unseen world. most of leeuwenhoek's microscopes were silver. in a simple but significant experiment (1668), he demonstrated that worms found on

the answer is they believed george iii would never give them their freedom.