Should+a+country+allow+itself+and+its+people+to+be+assaulted+by+a+warlike+nation?+-+Rough+Draft

Should a country allow itself and its people to be annihilated by a warlike nation? If looking up to our long history, we could see that almost every nation has engaged in countless warfare. Mostly driven by greed and ambition to be the most powerful in the world, a nation prepares itself (to)  be at war, and attempts to conquer other bordering nations. Among many risen and tumbled empires in the world, Persians during 5th century was one that gained universal power by toppling down many city states in the Middle East and Balkan Peninsula. Continuously creating warfare and expanding its territory, Persian Empire by the end of 5th century became the most dominant nation in Eurasia, and its power was enough to intimidate nations that were not yet influenced by. Once Persia achieved enormous power it turned its face toward the Mediterranean Sea, and (omit) Greek states were upon to decide between surrender and war. (Persian Wars 1997) Unlike other nations that easily taken over by Persia, Greek had enjoyed advanced and civilized culture, its government had power at some degree to unite citizens and keep them from potential agitation. Greek dared itself to fight back against the giant Persian army, and eventually defeated them. It’s still remembered as the most significant war in history. Yet, what would have happened if Greek state chose to surrender? It would have brought out indignity to the next generation, and would have not maintained precious cultural heritages that affected to the following nations such as Roman and Frank Empire. Many anti-war advocates would argue that resisting to objectively winning nation is too dangerous and cause too much damage and chaos. However, fighting back the invading nation is actually more prudent than avoiding. Winston Churchill during the Second World War said “One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.” (Quotation Page 1994) Thus, upon the ethical choice between war and surrender, it is justified to be right for one nation to fight against a warlike nation for the sake of its people and future, despite warfare requires sacrifice and pain. I'm guessing that the two main opponents to your thesis would be the aggressor nations that would want non-aggressive nations to not fight back and pacifists like Gandhi who would argue that other ways exist to 'fight back' without succumbing to violence. We'll see how that goes. 1268971390 

Every country has a duty to protect citizens to be safe. It is probably the most fundamental responsibility that nation should take care of its citizens and keep them from any circumstances of danger. Yet, when any nation is on the verge of warfare against more powerful and dominant country, it faces two ethical options; one is to fight against enemy, and the other is to surrender and simply let the enemy take its territory. The first option would be preferred by very patriotic people, militarists. (Philosophy questions and theory 2003) They will never let the enemy easily take over their home country and resist until the last person remains. Even though going to battle against such warlike nation takes tons of loss of lives, they would consider it as sacrifice for the nation, and in the long run, deserve for the future of the nation. On the other hand, the latter would sound very reasonable for pacifists (Philosophy questions and theory 2003) who don’t want to engage in the bloody combats and worry about losing their properties and family. Even though it is indignant to surrender, they would consider that fighting back to the warlike nation is too dangerous betting, and only generates unrecoverable damage to them. In this way, many nations in history chose to give up its sovereignty instead of resisting against dreadful enemy. Judging that warfare is no chance of winning the war, they thought that it’s (an)  ethically right choice to minimize the damage of people’s properties and lives. For instance, when Mongolians during 13th century expanded its power to Russia, city states of Riazan and Kolumna (All empires 2007) estimated that warfare against advanced Mongolian army would merely cause horrible circumstances to their people, and merely chose to surrender. However, is a nation, which easily gives up its sovereignty for the name of protection of people, ever right? The act of giving up sovereignty is the ultimate decision that a nation can do, as it means the abandonment of authority to protect its citizens. A nation which declares surrender is the same as claiming that they’ll no longer care about future of its people, whether the enemy will exploit or discriminate them under their own rule. While the winning Mongolian army conquered most of Asian nations and kept expanding to the Middle East, Ottoman tribes decided to fight against Mongols unlike to (omit)  those Russian empires that easily capitulated. Even though Ottoman empire was newly born nation following Seljuk Turk, and so didn’t have enough time to arrange the war against Mongolians, the government and people agreed to fight bravely to protect their heritage that had descended since Mohammad. They knew that Mongolians are more dominant and the warfare would bring enormous loss of lives and properties. However, they judged that sacrifice of themselves would be right than surrender, and decided to fight as long as they could. In the short term, they lost lots of territories. Yet, they won the decisive war at Ankara, in 1402, called Battle of Ankara, (The battle of Ankara 1940) in which eventually halted the intrusion of Mongolian and protected distinctive Islamic Culture, as Greek states defeated Persian army. Why a nation wants to give up its chance for the sake of “superficial” protection of its people, rather than at least trying to maintain the everlasting and glorious protection of its people? It is unjust and morally wrong behavior if one country just gives up its sovereignty. Even though the enemy is a lot stronger, confronting it squarely and entering warfare is a chance of arousing the spirit of .patriotism within the nation. When powerful nation attempts to invade a country, a leader is in the position to determine either surrender or fight. The leader is placed upon ethical dilemma; he has to choose between sacrifice lives and economic burden if going to war, and value of nationalism if giving up the warfare. The prime minister of Britain Winston Churchill during the Second World War was in the same ethical dilemma. When Nazis led by Adolf Hitler controlled over Poland, Netherland, Belgium, and most of Western Europe, he had to decide either warfare or peace. Like Belgium surrendered to Nazis in May 28 1940, frightened that dominant Nazis military would atrociously annihilate its nation, Churchill could have let Nazis do what they wanted, and save people from enormous amounts of death. As a leader of one nation, he decided to fight against Nazis even though its air forces could devastatingly burn down his country. Saying that “ [|A love for tradition has never weakened a nation; indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.] ” (Quotation Page 1994), he strongly believed that British could resist back against German army like when Napoleon invaded the Island in 19th century. He also saw that warfare was a chance to unite people’s spirit, the spirit of patriotism. Even when German army blockaded British island, and devastatingly raided London in August 1940, (The history place 1996) Churchill never announced speech dismally, but instead cheered British army and people by saying “Let us brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'” In addition, in his famous speech Churchill announced, “I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.” (Wikipedia 2010) His stubborn willingness to fight and protect the country from annihilation finally ended up with <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(in) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> success, shrinking German power and eventually <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">cast <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(casting) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> it down. The warfare of course cost giant loss of people, money, and mental illness. However, Churchill valued the hopeful future of nation over temporary pain, and he was right. Even after the war British held the position of advanced democracy in the world, and aroused lofty for the next generation, which could have turned to be indignity if he surrendered. It is obvious fact that there is no such country that has survived without suffering from the war. While a man grows up to be an adult, he experiences lots of bad incidents; he would break up with his girlfriend that he ever loves, or he would lose his parents because of unexpected accident. Throughout lots of pains in his life that he can’t always avoid, he becomes more mature and brave. The painful past arouses the man to deal more efficiently with difficult task, and helps him survive in society. Likewise, one nation walks the same path as the man. It is inevitable for one nation to advert all the dangers of being at warfare, and those nations that avoided the warfare would never be survived and annihilated by other stronger nations who suffered lots of warfare. Leaders of Russian tribes are good examples that show the shunning away from war would eventually undermine nationalism of one country. Russian leaders have historically been meek and obedient to enemies. Instead of trying to resist against the foe, they were likely to surrender and avoid the disastrous results from warfare. For instance, Russia was afraid of going to war when Mongols invaded them, and that led Russians to be in the state of peace for a relatively long time, keeping the old traditions that they had had. (Wikipedia 2010) However, keeping the peace in fact weakened its competitiveness in the world. While many Western European countries like Germany, France, and England had gone through lots of warfare and began to expand their power all over the world, Russian nation states were far behind from them and kept stayed isolated like a feeble man who is afraid of socializing with <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(other) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> people. Russian leaders, at some point, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">are <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(were) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">morally right because they saved lots of people from death. However, it cost them to lower the spirit of patriotism, made next generation to think that their ancestors were always weak that turned down loyalty to a nation. While choosing morally right choice, they lost strong national identity, which is necessary to maintain a nation for a long time. Russia stayed weak until radical Bolshevik took a control of its country during Revolution and took down those who chose surrender for the sake of peace. (The Bolshevik Revolution 1996) In conclusion, one nation must at once suffer and go through warfare in order to survive long and raise the national identity among people. The problem here would be whether sacrifice of one generation is valuable to one nation. And many historical facts prove that it is worth. War is just unethical and creates horrible situations. A nation should consider disastrous consequences that war would bring, such as loss of life and mental illness. Even if warfare would arouse spirit of patriotism and establish strong national identity among people, the moment of being at war should not be ignored, but seriously concerned. It is a general fact that warlike country that has long been prepared itself for warfare has more chance to win. It meticulously investigates all the information of the enemy that are needed to kneel down a nation, so there has more possibility to achieve what it wants to. Therefore, it is a dangerous betting for a nation to go at war against warlike country. Additionally, those people at war, they don’t know how long it would take to finish the war, nor when would be the end of warfare. They would continuously live under horror, anxiety, and nightmare of warfare, which even lasts after the end of war. Vietnam was a country that fought against the invader French and the United States, during 1950’s and 60’s. (Battlefield 1995) They wanted to get away from long external rule, and fought against two superpower countries, that many people thought that it would be impossible to win over. However, taking geographical advantage and hoping independence desperately, Vietnamese fought tirelessly and defeated all the foreign nations in Vietnam. It was certainly a glorious victory for Vietnamese; yet it was also a painful victory at the same time. Remains of warfare, such as Agent Orange <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">(a dioxin) <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">((dioxin)) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> used by U.S. army in order to distinguish between trees and Vietcong, destroyed 6 million acres of foliage, trees, and food crops. (Wikipedia - Weapons of the Vietnam War 2010) Moreover, the enormous amount of mines left over continuously killed many Vietnamese, and in just one district of Vietnam 300 children have died, 42 have lost one or more limbs, and 16 have been blinded as a result of land-mines laid during the war. (Impact of armed conflict on children 2009) Such case proves that there’s no glorious victory after any warfare. Rather than victory and patriotic spirit of the next generation, negative aftereffects caused by warfare will everlastingly remain there and bother for the next generation. Most importantly, even if a country dauntlessly decided <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(decides) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> to fight back against warlike nation, what if it loses at war? It is good to attempt to fight back against warlike country, but loss at war would annihilate one nation, even one ethnic group. For example, Carthaginian in ancient time was dominating the Mediterranean Sea during 200 A.D., and it was inevitable to avoid the great warfare with newly rising nation, Roman Empire. At the war between Roman and Carthaginian Empire called the First Punic War, both ones had equivalent power and it was hard to predict which empire would defeat the other. After long battle for five years that caused huge damage, Roman Empire won the war, and succeeded in shrinking back the power of Carthaginian in the Mediterranean Sea. Though lost at war, Carthaginian still had capacity to recover its army, and about 30 years later, well-prepared Carthaginian army led by Hannibal almost succeed in making revenge against Romans. However, a brilliant general Scipio Africanus counterattacked Hannibal army, eventually saved Roman Empire from a defeat. Rome won a decisive victory against Carthaginian, and it gained absolute domination of the western Mediterranean in 200 B.C. As lost two consecutive wars against Roman Empire, it no longer had chance to recover its power back. About 50 years later, when Carthaginians were attacked by Romans who wanted to annihilate them, they couldn’t resist back but let the enemy kill every single one and destroy everything they’ve established for hundreds of years. As a result, Carthage, once dominated the Mediterranean Sea, was erased from the map. It was not like Greeks, Ottoman, and British Empire that dauntlessly fought against their formidable enemies and gained victory. The unreasonable decision of Carthaginians to fight back against the warlike enemy was ethically wrong, as they led to numerous people’s death and annihilation of one ethic group. War is the worst thing that human beings can commit. A country should try to negotiate rather than go to war. There’s an old saying “The pen is mightier than the sword”. It means that sometimes tactical negotiation or eloquent strategy rather than just warfare would be more advantageous. During the Second World War, German army led by Adolf Hitler was about to attack <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">on <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(omit) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> Switzerland, since it is located in the centre of Europe and conquering the land would facilitate the movement of German army. Hitler knew that Switzerland had been a neutral country since its independence since 1815, but it was necessary for him to control it over to satisfy his ambition of conquering all Europe. General Henri Guisan was at that time <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">charged <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(in charge) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> to protect Switzerland, and he knew that Hitler <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">no <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(without) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> a doubt would invade his country, ignoring the state of neutrality, like he did <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">attack <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(omit) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> on Netherland and Belgium which also declared neutrality from the war. He concluded that going to war with Germany was no use, but he dared to negotiate with Germany, intimidating Germany by saying that Switzerland would blow up its own highways and railroads. The primary reason for attacking Switzerland was to gain those facilities, and if Switzerland itself exploded them, Hitler had no reason to take it over. Because of its dauntless strategy that Henri Guisan thought of, Switzerland could avoid the bombardment of warfare. This is an example of how a nation can wisely escape from bloody disaster, instead of sacrificing innocent life of people. It is supported by one of conditions of just war theory, which claims that alternatives to war must be tried before warfare. It is true that damage from warfare can everlastingly remain and lead to dreadful consequences. However, according to just war theory, defending itself from a warlike nation is justified as morally right. Some militarists – people who believe that using military force to settle disputes is morally right – support the just war theory, which has been articulated by various philosophers, including the ancient Roman thinker Cicero and Thomas Aquinas*. The theory <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">is consisted <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(consists) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> of seven conditions, and three important principles out of them are 1. Just cause: a war must be fought only for a just cause, such as self defense. 2. Right intention: the only right intention was to ensure peace. 3. Only combatants can be attacked; non military targets must be protected from harm*. A warlike nation that invades another country doesn’t satisfy three principle of just war theory, and it is morally wrong. At first, it doesn’t fulfill the first principle of theory, “war is needed for a just cause”, since they’re fighting for their revenge, revenge, and ambition of expanding its dominance. The warlike nation also violates the second principle. Instead of fighting itself in order to ensure peace, they fight for the purpose of benefiting from warfare. The <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">United States that attacked <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">(United States' attack on) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Iraq in 2003 would be a perfect example that violates the second principle, as they fought for getting natural resources although the President George Bush said “The war is to fight against terrorism and world peace” (The nuclear weapon was never found in Iraq, and fear of terrorism maintains in Iraq). Lastly, in the case of the third one, a warlike nation cannot help but attacking non combatants when they’re attacking. Take an example of the Gaza War in 2008-2009, the most recent and internationally focused war. The warlike nation was Israel, since they had made lots of assaults to get rid of Palestinians who primarily lived in Jerusalem. Even though the latest weapons were used during the war only to kill armed soldiers but not innocent non combatants, Israeli killed 926 civilians. If total killed during the war is 1,417, the death of 926 is not too small <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(awk) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">. Therefore, it’s again turned out that warlike nation violates the principle. In contrast, a defending nation against warlike nation fulfills the three principles of just war theory. She is obviously fighting for defense, ensuring peace, and dealing with only those soldiers who invaded its territory, not civilians. Based on the just war theory, it is morally correct for one nation to fight against warlike nation, keep its people from peril. Even if lost at war, many countries with strong patriotism recover themselves back again and resist to enemy stubbornly. After losing at war and being forced to concede its sovereignty, some nations that had had strong nationalism for a long time of history resisted back against the enemy. For example, after losing at battle of Yellow Sea, Korean dynasty was forced to sign up for Treaty of Ganghwa which allowed Japanese people to intervene Korean politic. As Japanese colonized Korea, they tried to annihilate Korean group, by forcing them to learn Japanese at school and follow Japanese customs in house. Though it lost the war and faced risk of being annihilated by Japan, Korean people resisted by breaking out small and big battles. Their independence movement against Japan continued for about thirty fifty years, which took a lot of sacrifices from them. A lot of people tortured, killed and expelled form the country. Yet they never stopped resisting, and eventually got independence in August 15, 1945. In addition to resistant movement against Japan, French resistance during Second World War is another example that shows one nation could be recovered instead of being annihilated. Once completely conquered by Nazis, French people disheartened at the moment but soon recovered their patriotism and fought back against their enemy. Especially at Paris, the capital of France, a group of people called “Resistance” were associated and sporadically made guerrilla warfare. Many of them were killed during battles, and lots of arrested were cruelly tortured. Under those extreme conditions, they did not think their death is worthless, but considered it as valuable one that sacrificed for France. They never thought that their decision to <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">death <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(die) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> is morally wrong choice, but something precious one for the country. Therefore, due to one generation’s invaluable sacrifice, France could get out from Hitler’s dominance. In other words, the temporary pain of one generation suffered eventually aroused the sense of unite in the nation. Therefore, the argument that war is ethically wrong because losing at war eventually annihilates one country is invalid. There are cases that country recovered after loss at war. It is wrong to argue for the fact that warfare against warlike nation is ethically wrong; it’s matter of people’s nationalism within a country. If people already have strong patriotism, they have chance to win the war eventually, even if the enemy is dominant warlike nation. It even satisfies one of just war theory, reasonable hope of success: the war can be won. Most warlike nations are not likely to negotiate each other. The case of Switzerland during the Second World War2 is an exceptional case that could fortunately avoid warfare. There are more cases that negotiation was denied than accorded. For example, American <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">independent <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(independence) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">war is one good example that negotiation is refused. In 1770’s, when British government interrupted economy market in America and limited their economic growth, colonial leaders gathered and sent a petition letter to parliament expecting accordance. However, the British parliament rejected their proposal, and decided to limit colonies’ economy forever. It was the time when people in colonies had no option but fighting against dominant British nation. They were not sure if they’d win the war. But it was inevitable, like Patrick Henry at Virginian Burgess said “Give me liberty or death”. They had to defend themselves to live on their life. In addition, Netherland and Belgium during the Second World War were another case that they had no choice but had to face warfare against enemy. Afraid of being involved in another swirl of international war, two countries declared neutrality, meaning that no nation could invade their territory. However, Hitler who wanted to conquer all parts of Western Europe including Netherlands and Belgium ignored proclaim and decided to invade them in 1940. Two countries had no choice but <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">facing <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(to face) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">unwanted war against bellicose country. However, the most important point was that their warfare was justified as fair, since <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">they’re <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(they were) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> defending itself from warlike nation. In my opinion, it seems to be the best situation if one nation uses its weapons and armies only to defend itself from any potential assaults, rather than to invade others. Yet, this is something ideal event which doesn’t happen in real life, since every nation is driven by self-interest, looking for the maximum benefits they could get. So the situation that one strong nation would attempt to assault one country for whatever reason is inevitable. When one nation is attacked by warlike nation, it needs discretion of government to decide whether going to war or not. In most cases, fighting back against the warlike enemy, even if there’d be chance to be annihilated and lose lots of lives, is correct. Going to warfare against warlike nation is not only defended by just war theory, but also used <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: line-through;">as <span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">(omit) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> to arouse people’s patriotism. Regardless of its aftermath, it is just to resist against warlike nation. <span style="background-color: #ffff00; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> You could reduce the length of your essay a lot by selecting the strongest of your arguments and examples. Style-wise, your paragraphs are very long and sometimes difficult to read -- add an extra space between them to set them off. Work on the topic sentence of each paragraph so that the point you are trying to make is obvious. Also, you neglected the one main argument against your thesis that I could see: Gandhi's idea of passive resistance -- which argues that you can resist an aggressor, but do so non-violently. He had pretty good success against the British empire in India using this idea and it was carried on my the likes of Martin Luther King and currently by the Dali Lama. I would think that you would need to present that argument and then show why it is incorrect.1268971390 <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">

Bibiliography [] [] Philosophy questions & theories [] [|http://members.core.com/~turgut/ankara.htm] [] [] []' [] [] [] []

Very extensive but very thorough. Had a hard time reading it. The use of hundreds of examples and sources are more than enough to give credibility to the readers. Just a few errors, such as "a dioxin" in paragraph 5(?) if i'm not mistaking. dioxin is a substance just like water, so it should be just "dioxin." While reading this essay, I felt i was reading some kind of an extensive National Geographics magazine.1268804694

The essay creates alot of credibilty to the reader becuase it provides with alot of support and evidence with facts. The essay has grammatical and sentence structure erros that make it harder for you to portray your ideas clearly and state your point. The mistakes have been pointed above.Overall i liked the topics and the way it was aproached. Sofia Chahin

1268487472Hi Janghun -- you'll have to insert the text of your paper here as well so that others can do peer evaluations [[user:dschult|1268581219