which arguments do you believe were the strongest counterpoints to the opposing statements
In order to determine my own stance on war, I’m going to list the perceived advantages and disadvantages, weigh them against each other, and then make a rational conclusion. Without further ado, here’s the list. Advantages Economic growth – War can strengthen an economy by providing jobs. Also, war allows manufacturing to thrive, especially weapons and ammo manufacturing. In times of conflict, more people buy weapons and ammo, and thus more money changes hands, which benefits the people selling the weapons, and boosts the economy. Technological advancement – Competition and conflict tend to lead to nations trying to develop better technology than their opponents. Think of the accelerated progress in aviation technology. By the year 1900, we barely had any. By the time World War II had ended, we had fully functional fighter planes. Also, the technology that is created can still be useful after the conflict is over. You get to play your part in history – History is written when conflict happens, and those who participate in wars play a role in shaping the course of history. The aftermath of winning – Of course, what happens as a result of victory depends from country to country, but generally it means that they avoid suffering under the yoke of another power, that is if it’s that kind of war. Disadvantages The obvious casualties – An inevitable part of war is of course the loss of life. Sadly, lots of the lives that get lost are innocent people who get caught up in the situation, and of course, many opponents of war (and advocates of world peace) tend to only see that side of war. Hatred and propaganda – War is often used to justify hatred and discrimination against certain groups, which is obviously not good. The opportunity to rile people up against a certain group of people also gives rise to propaganda, as we’ve seen in World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the current Mid-East conflicts. Environmental damage – Modern warfare has been known to cause damage to the environment. One notable example is the damage done to the oilfields of Kuwait during the Gulf War of the early 90’s. Before the Gulf War, Kuwait’s desert was healthy, in spite of centuries of nomadic grazing, and years of oil development. In the 60’s and 70’s, America sprayed herbicides over the forests of Vietnam in an attempt to deprive guerilla fighters of any cover the trees provided them with. This resulted in numerous toxins sinking into the soil and sea, many plants dying, many animals siring deformed offspring, and numerous other dreadful consequences. What if the “bad guy” wins? – If a tyrannical nation wins a war, then they can do whatever they want whatever free nation they conquer. I don’t think I need to describe it. Liberty takes a back seat to patriotism – In times of conflict, nations will want the people to support the war. This is why anyone who criticizes the conflict is seen as a “traitor”. This is most particularly true in America (which is ironically still called the land of the free), where several civil liberties have been occasionally curtailed in the named of patriotism. This was true in World War II, and in Vietnam, and it was true after 9/11, and when the US lands itself in another stupid war, the same will happen again.
1. which arguments do you believe were the strongest counterpoints to the opposing statements? Why?
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
