Throughout the long history of the world, there has been a multitude of instances of warfare, ranging from the two relatively large-scale world wars to the more recent relatively small-scale Russian invasion of Georgia, South Ossetia. Undoubtedly, some wars occurred because there was no other way out, such as America being forced to join the Second World War in order to end Hitler’s Nazi regime. But even if a war may be for the better, the undeniable truth is that war always brings about suffering to the common masses. So one big question remains: can war ever be justified?
Let us first delve into the motives for starting wars. One popular reason for starting wars is to keep the peace. Take for instance, USA’s invasion of Iraq, for which they said they wanted to end Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and stop Iraq from harbouring illegal nuclear weapons. However, this reason is self-contradictory as how can one expect to keep peace through wars when the action of starting a war breaks the peace? Thus it can be logically established that wars cannot be expected to bring about peace.
Wars, which may be beneficial to those higher up, are detrimental to the common masses. The Iraq war was a boon to USA on the macro level, allowing them to build up crude oil reserves, alleviating the Middle East’s monopoly on crude oil, as well as reestablish their strong position as one of the greatest military powers in the world. However on the micro level, countless civilians from both sides are suffering. To the homeless refugees in war-torn Iraq who are trying to cope with the loss of their loved ones, struggling for survival is a daily affair. On the other hand, many young Americans are being drafted to join the Iraq war, many of them unwillingly. Casualties increase by the day as many American parents lose their beloved children. Putting oneself in the shoes of either Iraqi refugees or American parents who have lost children in the war, the feeling of losing of loved ones would be truly devastating. As can be seen, loss of human lives is part and parcel of war. So, how can loss of human lives ever be justified?
Speaking about wars, I am reminded of an old pun: War does not determine who is right, it determines who is left. A simple play on words, but sadly all too true. When countries have a dispute, they sometimes turn to war to settle it. But can war change anything? If a country is in the wrong, but they win a war, does it make them right? The answer is evidently no. Apart from determining which country has the greatest military might, war does not solve anything.
In conclusion, wars can never be justified because trying to get the better of a disagreement can never compensate for the loss of lives, destruction of property, extensive damages, and all the negative effects brought about by war.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Democracy creates stability in a society
I agree to a large extent that democracy creates stability in a society.
By statistics, democratic countries have the highest levels of human development as opposed to autocracies being the poorest countries around. The reason for this is that democracies do not rely on force to govern, but instead rely on the consensus of its citizens. In democracies, citizens have a right to vote and thus a medium to choose their government through elections or express their views on state matters through referendums. Thus such democracies usually enjoy peace and prosperity with much economic growth. South Korea and Singapore, which are considered to be among the richest countries in the world, are testament to that; they are democratic countries with sound education and economic policies.
In addition to that, most of the states, which have disintegrated, were authoritarian ones. Authoritarian states govern by force and their citizens do not get to choose their government as well as not being given any say in state matters. Such states tend to be war-torn and poor. Examples of such states include the former USSR and Yugoslavia. While during their beginning they were regarded by some as good examples of development, in the end their leaders failed to get their people to achieve a consensus on both the political and economic frontier, resulting in societal instability. Thus as can be seen from real-life examples, the trend is that democracies thrive while autocratic states do not.
However, there has been no clear and established link between democracies and development. There also has been no clear co-relation between authoritarian states and poverty. Although real-life examples show that democracies thrive better, it is not because of their political ideology, but their policies. Thriving democracies such as Singapore have sound economic policies, which contribute to their economic growth. Their trade agreements with other states give them a wider choice of market. However, leaders of authoritarian states normally want to exercise a lot of control on the market, leading to such states being economically unstable. But theoretically if an authoritarian state had sound policies such as those that democracies have, they may be able to flourish like their democratic counterparts.
All in all it can be seen that whether a state is a democracy or an authoritarian one does not affect its stability. It is in fact, the states’ policies, which do. But such policies are affected by the values of which the political ideologies of the state in question imply. Democratic values imply peace, progression, consensus and personal choice. In contrast, authoritarian values imply unconditional obedience to leaders and lack of personal choice. Thus democratic values go hand in hand with development as the choices they offer complement the social and economic choices offered by development; a society needs to be receptive to progress. As a result, I agree to large extent that democracy creates stability in a society.
By statistics, democratic countries have the highest levels of human development as opposed to autocracies being the poorest countries around. The reason for this is that democracies do not rely on force to govern, but instead rely on the consensus of its citizens. In democracies, citizens have a right to vote and thus a medium to choose their government through elections or express their views on state matters through referendums. Thus such democracies usually enjoy peace and prosperity with much economic growth. South Korea and Singapore, which are considered to be among the richest countries in the world, are testament to that; they are democratic countries with sound education and economic policies.
In addition to that, most of the states, which have disintegrated, were authoritarian ones. Authoritarian states govern by force and their citizens do not get to choose their government as well as not being given any say in state matters. Such states tend to be war-torn and poor. Examples of such states include the former USSR and Yugoslavia. While during their beginning they were regarded by some as good examples of development, in the end their leaders failed to get their people to achieve a consensus on both the political and economic frontier, resulting in societal instability. Thus as can be seen from real-life examples, the trend is that democracies thrive while autocratic states do not.
However, there has been no clear and established link between democracies and development. There also has been no clear co-relation between authoritarian states and poverty. Although real-life examples show that democracies thrive better, it is not because of their political ideology, but their policies. Thriving democracies such as Singapore have sound economic policies, which contribute to their economic growth. Their trade agreements with other states give them a wider choice of market. However, leaders of authoritarian states normally want to exercise a lot of control on the market, leading to such states being economically unstable. But theoretically if an authoritarian state had sound policies such as those that democracies have, they may be able to flourish like their democratic counterparts.
All in all it can be seen that whether a state is a democracy or an authoritarian one does not affect its stability. It is in fact, the states’ policies, which do. But such policies are affected by the values of which the political ideologies of the state in question imply. Democratic values imply peace, progression, consensus and personal choice. In contrast, authoritarian values imply unconditional obedience to leaders and lack of personal choice. Thus democratic values go hand in hand with development as the choices they offer complement the social and economic choices offered by development; a society needs to be receptive to progress. As a result, I agree to large extent that democracy creates stability in a society.
Friday, March 7, 2008
It is an undisputable fact that teenage smoking is an ongoing trend, which may culminate in serious social problems. Over the course of years, various solutions have been put forth as to how this issue of teenage smoking should be resolved. This particular article at the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1697227.stm proposes an intriguing view on how teenage smoking should be put to a stop.
In this article, it is stated that through research, it has been found out that tougher smoking laws are needed to curb the problem of teenage smoking. The study, carried out in the US and published in the journal Tobacco Control, is pushing for the legal age for buying tobacco to be increased to 21. In addition to that, only those over 21 should be allowed to sell tobacco to their friends.
Apparently the researchers in the article think that laws restricting the teenagers from obtaining tobacco and cigarettes are the best way to prevent teenage smoking. For example, if a teenage smoker is unable to obtain tobacco and cigarettes, there will be no way for him or her to smoke.
However, I disagree with the point of view in the article. I think that restricting those teenagers from obtaining tobacco or cigarettes through passing laws is not very feasible as if those teenagers are bent on smoking, they would break those laws to buy tobacco or cigarettes illegally.
In my opinion, to resolve the issue of teenage smoking, the underlying factors, which drive those teenagers to smoke, have to be solved first. I believe that most teenagers try our cigarettes because they are curious or because of peer pressure as their friends do it, so they follow suit to fit in with the group. To solve these problems, I feel that educating the young about the detrimental health effects and potential social problems, which may be caused by smoking, could be a good deterrent for teenage smoking. Also, as if I am not wrong, majority of people in the world are non-smokers and they should be doing their part by encouraging their friends not to smoke. I believe that this soft approach to the problem of teenage smoking should be more effective than the hard approach of passing laws.
In conclusion, I feel that nowadays some teenagers are quite rebellious and to get them to follow something, forcing them to do so is not a good idea; persuading them would be more effective. Thus, I think that instilling non-smoking values in teenagers since young would be a good way to curb the problem of teenage smoking.
In this article, it is stated that through research, it has been found out that tougher smoking laws are needed to curb the problem of teenage smoking. The study, carried out in the US and published in the journal Tobacco Control, is pushing for the legal age for buying tobacco to be increased to 21. In addition to that, only those over 21 should be allowed to sell tobacco to their friends.
Apparently the researchers in the article think that laws restricting the teenagers from obtaining tobacco and cigarettes are the best way to prevent teenage smoking. For example, if a teenage smoker is unable to obtain tobacco and cigarettes, there will be no way for him or her to smoke.
However, I disagree with the point of view in the article. I think that restricting those teenagers from obtaining tobacco or cigarettes through passing laws is not very feasible as if those teenagers are bent on smoking, they would break those laws to buy tobacco or cigarettes illegally.
In my opinion, to resolve the issue of teenage smoking, the underlying factors, which drive those teenagers to smoke, have to be solved first. I believe that most teenagers try our cigarettes because they are curious or because of peer pressure as their friends do it, so they follow suit to fit in with the group. To solve these problems, I feel that educating the young about the detrimental health effects and potential social problems, which may be caused by smoking, could be a good deterrent for teenage smoking. Also, as if I am not wrong, majority of people in the world are non-smokers and they should be doing their part by encouraging their friends not to smoke. I believe that this soft approach to the problem of teenage smoking should be more effective than the hard approach of passing laws.
In conclusion, I feel that nowadays some teenagers are quite rebellious and to get them to follow something, forcing them to do so is not a good idea; persuading them would be more effective. Thus, I think that instilling non-smoking values in teenagers since young would be a good way to curb the problem of teenage smoking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)