If you order your research papers from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on yeso. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality yeso paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in yeso, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your yeso paper at affordable prices!
Prime Minister John Howard has ignited an international debate by saying he would be willing to order a pre-emptive strike to stop a terrorist attack against Australia. Mr Howard told Channel Nine any prime minister who had the capacity to prevent an attack against Australia would be failing the most basic test of office if he did not use it, as long as there was no alternative. South-east Asian governments have condemned the statement, saying Australia does not have the right to launch attacks in other countries. Can Australia justify military operations in other countries and, if so, what criteria should be used to decide if such action is warranted? Is Mr Howard exposing Australia to further terrorist strikes by making such a bold statement? Or is the reaction to Mr Howards comment out of proportion to what he actually said? And does Australia have the military strength to back up Mr Howards assertion, or will Australia have to rely on the United States
toothless tiger
With the possibility of the US taking unilateral military action war against Iraq gaining momentum, what should the United Nations (UN) be doing to solve the crisis? US President George W Bush is critical of the UNs effectiveness in dealing with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and has called for the UN Security Council to face its responsibilities. Prime Minister John Howard says the UNs authority may be fatally damaged if it does not act against Iraq. So is the United Nations a relevant force on the world stage or a toothless tiger. Do you think chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blixs report to the UN Security Council makes a case for war against Iraq? How likely is it the US will go to war without backing from the UN? With Australian troops on their way to the Persian Gulf, whats your view of Australias commitment to the military build-up in the Gulf? Is the US justified in continuing to build up its forces in the Gulf in preparation for war? Should Australia continue supporting the US or make stronger diplomatic efforts in the UN arena?
Why we might have to go to war
February 1 00
Everybody hopes for peace. But what if Saddam really is as big a danger as Bush says he is? By Pamela Bone.
It is a great contradiction that while democratic countries are again preparing for war, most people who live in democracies dont want it. The peace movement is stronger now than at any time in the past. And though those out marching for peace may still be a minority, poll after poll shows a majority in nearly every country is opposed to a war against Iraq.
Its very often said it was the Vietnam War, the first war to be shown on television, that changed peoples minds (and I urge anyone who has half forgotten that time to go and see The Quiet American, the film of Graham Greenes novel of the same name). But the opposition is particularly strong in Europe, where a generation still remembers the slaughter of World War II. Its even strong in the United States, where most people dont want their country attacking Iraq without the backing of the United Nations.
Can some small comfort be found in the fact that the human race appears to be losing its liking for war? Its true the defence forces have lately been attracting more young people, but those who join the army these days are more likely to do so because it is a way of being paid while getting qualifications, and of having a secure career. I doubt many seriously envisage one day being required to kill people (even though they cant stipulate they wont be part of military action). It means no disloyalty to those now on their way to the Gulf to say most people these days dont want to fight.
Perhaps they never did. But although John Howards chest might swell at being able to send his forces to support Americas, the days of kings and chiefs, or even prime ministers, being able to command huge armies are over. People are too aware of individual rights; empire building is out of fashion; and globalisation and multiculturalism have made it harder to see other races as enemies. There is still such a thing as a just war, but it is harder these days to see any war as just.
The biggest cause of the lack of support for this war is the general distrust of the motives, or even the competency, of those who are pushing for it, as well as fear of what the consequences might be. There is widespread fear that the diplomatic ineptitude of a handful of men could plunge the world into a major war.
@media print {.nopr {displaynone}}
The religious rhetoric and hectoring style of George Bush goes down particularly badly in the secular, liberal societies of Europe. I share the distrust of Bush, on whose face I am unable to discern a glimmer of wisdom. I share the horror at the thought of one Iraqi child being killed in this attack, should it happen. But it is here that I probably part company with many in the peace movement. Because what if Saddam Hussein really is as big a danger as they say he is, and continues to resist efforts to disarm him?
In 181 Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq. In 10 Iraq invaded Kuwait. In 000, according to a British Foreign Office report, Saddam approved amputation of the tongue as a penalty for criticism of him. The same report - and this has been confirmed by Iraqi women I have spoken to - says Saddams army retains professional rapists. Saddam has had and has used chemical weapons against his own people. The British Prime Minster, Tony Blair, whom I am inclined to trust, says Saddam either has or is developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and would use them. Are we willing to take the risk of him sending anthrax germs around the world?
The trouble with deciding whether or not a war is just is that it is usually only possible to know when it is over. Most people would now agree that World War II (but not the Vietnam War) was a just war. What if Saddam is just as dangerous as Hitler was?
Estimates have been made that up to 0,000 people may be killed as a result of an attack on Iraq. Experts warn of a conflagration in the region. The possible consequences are indeed terrifying.
But the truth is that even experts cannot predict what will happen. I have recently been rereading World Conflicts, by Patrick Brogan, published in 18. The author described Europe then as the most dangerous place on the planet, because of the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union. He warned that if all eastern European states demanded their freedom, the Soviet Union could revert to Stalinist thuggery to restore its authority. It is most unlikely that the dissolution of the greatest of all 0th century empires will be accomplished peacefully, he wrote.
Today the states of eastern Europe are getting ready to join the European Union, old enemies France and Germany are preparing to share government ministers, and Germany, still seen as potentially dangerous 15 years ago, is perhaps the most pacifist country in Europe.
I hope there is no war. I hope an indefinite presence of weapons inspectors in Iraq may buy time enough for Saddam to either agree to go, or be overthrown by his own people. If there must be force I hope it has the authority of the United Nations behind it, and that it is quick, with few civilian deaths (please, none).
I hope for peace in our time. But not peace at any price.
Pamela Bone is an associate editor of The Age.
How many dead Iraqis will it take?
January 0 00
It seems we are meant to believe that the children of Iraq somehow deserve their fate, writes Carmen Lawrence.
So much of the talk by those pressing for an attack on Iraq is stripped bare of the bloody reality of war. It is clinical, anaesthetised and intentionally devoid of emotion.
I dont think I have once heard Prime Minister John Howard talk of the Iraqi lives that would be obliterated, the inevitable legacy of disability, homelessness and the stream of refugees that would result from it Please note that this sample paper on yeso is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on yeso, we are here to assist you.Your research papers on yeso will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
