War is not Beneficial to the World Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

War is not Beneficial to the World - Term Paper Example Contrary to beliefs that human beings should not fight each other, there are individuals who have vested interests and used war as a scapegoat to achieve their personal gains. These interests might take the form of resources owned by certain nations. Due to greed, some nations have invaded other nations through war in a bid to embezzle resources from the said countries. Further, it argues that human beings fight each other for revenge purposes, that is, to avenge perceived insults or defeat. The fact that human beings would always want to feel superior over others and thus through war, they are able to prove their superiority. Human beings do fight when they perceive threats from others or chances of losing. It is also argued that war is a natural population control, however, unpleasant, it acts to ease competition for resources, and reduce population. In light of war being a natural control for unhealthy large population, there are other ways to curb the growth. War is inevitable, this is evident from the fact that, over the years, the number of wars has reduced gradually, with regard to first war and the second;   also the casualties of war or violence have reduced with time (Tomsen 532). There has been a significant drop in the number of deaths resulting from wars. This may be attributed to a surge in the number of democracies, 20 to nearly all the countries since the Second World War. Since democracies, rarely wage war against each other, a continuing decline in the magnitude of armed conflicts may as well be seen. Decline of war may as well be credited to the creation of stable states having effective legal systems, and police forces, which eliminates the endless feuding that plagued tribal societies. Increased life expectancy makes people less willing to risk their lives by engaging in violence. Also as a result of globalization and communication, people have ended up being interdependent on each other.   On the other hand, war may not be inevitable this is because human beings have always fought in wars and always will due to the fact that human beings are innately aggressive.

The Rhetorical Presidency Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

The Rhetorical Presidency - Essay Example He managed not only to rescue his presidency but also instill national moral revival which had been diminishing. Now it has become a common phenomenon in contemporary leadership. The Genesis of Rhetoric Presidency Throughout the 19th Century, rhetoric presidency was received with a lot of suspicion and presidents rarely attempted to directly communicate to the people. Even the few speeches delivered by presidents were totally different from the ones delivered today. They were mostly concerned with constitutional matters, patriotism or conduct of war as opposed to today’s domestic policy speeches aimed at moving the nations’ conscience. In the modern times however, presidents have come to believe that they are not effective presidents if they cannot be able to exhort the public. It is now common for presidents to make press conferences, radio or TV coverage speeches, news releases or congressional address every so often. These speeches have a common tone to them, i.e. â €Å"Speaking is governing,† (Ceaser, 159), and are aimed at exhibiting the public’s reaction as if to a real situation. ... President Nixon was aware of the public’s reaction to a lot of rhetoric and came up with his own anti-rhetoric promising to stop it, but the president could not even control himself from ‘shouting back’ at his detractors. And of course there was President Carter who at first was all calm promising to bring sanity back to government but by the mid of his term his speeches were all full of rhetorical forcefulness talking of the decline and revitalization of the country. But what are the implications of these rhetoric speeches that almost all the contemporary presidents find themselves caught into? The Rhetoric Presidency: ‘Pulpit Bully’ or Mere Baloney? Many people term these speeches as mere rhetoric and they know that it’s all talk. But despite the knowledge of this fact, the excess speeches have continued to inflate people’s expectations to the detriment of these leaders. This has developed into an institutional dilemma for all the mode rn governments. These presidents are expected to match their actions with the ideals they created in the public’s mind through their rhetoric speeches. In the end, it is their government that is weakened by this kind of leadership since it is hard to measure up to the peoples’ puffed up expectations. With failure comes criticism and cynicism from the same people they sought to impress. When George Bush was asked about his most disappointing experience in leadership, he admitted that he was not a good communicator. Clinton too wished he had done a good job in communicating to the public according to what he could achieve, (Edwards, 20). So is the president’s office exactly a ‘bully pulpit’ as Roosevelt described it? Most modern