Our current state Of War A “State of War” is a period when two nations, parties, or even individuals are in open and armed conflict with each other. But how does this come about, and how would John Locke and President George W. Bush feel about how it is that a state of war originates? What actions must take place for war to exist? Is there a period of time that must be spent deliberating the possibility of entering into a state of war to determine its necessity? Is there even a choice in the mater, or is it born in all of human kind as a sort of character trait, which must at times be expressed. If a state of war is inevitable, should the support of others be established, and at what moment in this conflict does it become apparent that a state of war has just been entered into? Is this idea of “State of War” similar or different when comparing the writing of John Locke, with the actions of President Bush? To understand how it is that a state of war comes about we must know what it is. John Locke defines a state of war saying, “I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction… and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him.” (Ch 3 sec.
16, “Two Treatises of Government”) This gives a reasonable idea about what war is, when it is necessary to enter into a state of war, and how it is that it can be entered into. Locke is saying that war is a response to a threat. A threat can be a physical attack, or a verbal declaration to harm. The attack, or evidence of intent to harm is then reason enough for a state or war to be declared. With this understood and given the current state of war between Iraq and the United States can it be said, based on Locke’s statement, that George W. Bush had reason enough to enter into a state of war with Iraq? In a speech made to the American Enterprise Institute President Bush said, “In Iraq a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world – and we will not allow it.” The development of these weapons could be interpreted as a threat, and a threat against the civilized world would justify an interest in a state of war.
The Term Paper on War On Drugs George Bush
Have we lost the War on Drugs The War on Drugs officially started in 1972 with President Nixon declaring that drug law enforcement was not strict enough. To enforce the laws of the original Harrison Act, a new and intensified plan was to be enacted. The war reached its peak during the Reagan and Bush administrations, in which $67 billion was spent in enforcement of drug laws. The plan had worked ...
This statement shows that the actual threat is the development of weapons, so the goal of any sort of war would be to prevent this. So at this point it could be said that the statement Locke made could justify the intentions of President Bush. If it is clear that there should be an interest in a state that actions that take place before the war according to Locke should be afforded little time. Locke writes about the value of time when he says, “for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power with out my consent, would… make me a slave.” (Ch 3 sec. 17, “Two Treatises of Government”) Because it is clearly the goal of any enemy to take his opposition as a slave, Locke makes it clear that the enemy will not wait while you deliberate an attack; which leads to the importance of quick action.
This ideal extends even further; if there is the possibility of war, Locke never provides the possibility of negotiation. However President Bush did have time to review evidence regarding the severity of situation before developing a thought out strike plan. President Bush would agree with Locke that if there is a threat of war it is “the fundamental law of nature,” (Ch 3 sec. 16, “Two Treatises of Government”) to meet that threat with force. However they would disagree about the time spent readying for a state of war. John Locke says that a state of war is to be declared when someone has attempted to harm or enslave you among other things.
The Essay on Bush For President School Agree Completely
Bush for President Being a voter is a privilege, and something I'm defiantly not ready for. I believe 18 is a very reasonable if not to early of an age to become a voter. Some people claim the reason they don't study and become educated on the election is, they believe the election or the decision on who will become the next president will effect them. Each candidate stands for their own beliefs ...
He does not say however, at this point it is ok for you to get all of your buddies to help fight; if they aren’t in a state of war with your enemy, then it would not be in their best interest to enter themselves into one. But as we have seen in the current state of war with Iraq, it was in the best interest of President Bush to involve other nations, which may help alleviate the burden of a state of war. Locke would not be so quick to ask other nations for aid if at all; and therefore would disagree with the actions of President Bush. It is clear that a state of war is the conflict between two entities that can begin in many ways. But the fact is that as times have changed a state of war can involve almost the entire planet, which would give reason for concern and thought when progressing into this state. After a threat of any kind is imposed on you directly, you are in a state of war.
Locke would agree with the actions of President Bush as he entered the United States into a state of war with Iraq; but would however disagree with the time spent planning, and the involvement of other nations.
