WWII Just War Theory

World War II Just War Theory

The American's original intentions of the United States entry into war were justified, but because the intentions changed throughout the war makes their actions unjust. The Just War Theory gave several names to war strategies that kept the war just or on track to solving what was initially intended and keeping fair actions. It states that you do what ever you can to remain fair. Thomas Aquinas believed that by the end on the war, the reasons for fighting were not the same as the original intentions.

Germans sank numerous American merchant ships and took the supplies to England, Japan demanded unreasonably on the United States (for example they re-instated oil sales and dropped the support of the Philippines and China), German submarines began to shoot at American war ships, and Pearl Harbor were some of the key reasons for entering the war. Anytime we are attacked it was a leading act to joining this inevitable war. However, realize that we declared war on Japan and three days later Germany declared war on us was not a coincidence.

What the Americans later began to fight for was to be an alliance to England and France. This is unjust because initially we waned to fight the Japanese and German because they insisted war. In becoming allies with France and England, we had taken the spot light off of ourselves and put it directly onto our allies. Since England and France both have strong armies, it was not an issue for them to fight (especially with a few extra men from the American troops).

The Americans joined the war for one reason. Their reasoning for joining the war in the first place was still in mind, but has been expanded and tweaked. Their actions became unjust for giving one reason to go to war, but fighting for something else.

Why did the US attack Cuba?

Why Did the US Attack Cuba?

The reasoning for an attack on Cuba is stated in the article, March of the Flag, by Albert J. Beveridge. This states that the Americans attacked for Imperialistic reasons. They wanted to be seen by others as a great nation. Evidence in the article is: "If England can govern foreign lands, so can America!" I believe this to be one of the reasons for the claining of Cuba because America wanted to be the largest, strongest, and most dominionative nation in the world.

We another reason for the attack was that we felt it was necessary to free the Cubans from the Spanish. The article Reconcentration Camps, by Fitshugh Lee, states: "For a hundred and sixty men were thrown to the ground like animals."The last possible proposal for the attack on Cuba would have been the avenge the fallen ship and sailors of The Maine. The US would have attacked to get back at spain for sinking one of their ships. The Maine was being sent into Cuba, and was blown up by a mysterious explosion. The Americans took it to be a Spanish mine, and blamed them immediately for them blowing up our ship intentionally.

The most valid reason for the Americans to attack Cuba was to save them from the Spaniards. It was a very selfless act in that they went into Cuba, forced the Spanish out, and let Cuba become their own nation. The Americans didn't ask for anything in return (to our knowledge). Now, this made the Americans look very good. This may be a reason to make this theory up. Americans are stealing, lying, cheaters, and this seemed like an easy time to get ahead and tell all the other nations what great people they are by saving a helpless country.

Popularism in The State of the Union Adress

State of the Union Adress

Popularism is a political statement that appeals to the majority of the people who elect congress. Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as an insult against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as merely empathising with the public in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum.

On January 20, 2015, Barack Obama gave his State of the Union address. In this address, Obama used a new phrase, "Middle Class Economics." These "economics" include: free community college, free kindergarden, a new tax credit for families with both parents working, an expanded tax credit for child care, an expanded access to retirement savings accounts, equal pay for living, and an increased minimum wage.

Are any of these "free" things that Obama is offering actually free? Nothing is actually ever free. So who is actually paying for them? The government willingly throws the nation's money towards causes that "are for the greater good." He added all of these taxes on the upper class to pay for pther people's college experiences, or to pay for other's free kindergarden, ect. None of these things will, in the long run, be to the benefit of the majority. When all of the upper class begin to realize that since they work hard for their money and it is continually taken away, they will stop working hard for it. Eventually, who will be the upper class? The majority (the middle class) will be paying off the debts of our nation.