Causes of War for British - American and Canadian -assignmenthelp

Question: Write about theCauses of War for British, American and Canadian. Answer: Introduction While looking at the history of humanization, one can decide that the war seem to always present as a method to conquer the territory along with desired amount of resources or showing elevated level of dominance over other country. Mostly, reasons like Greed, Hate and religion are considered as the main reason or causes of the war. But to gain more clarity on the causes, one must realise and understand many other characteristics that play the crucial role in development of the international level of conflict. Countries can regard one another with major dislike over religion or other kind of values but this is hardly going to cause them to be on the war (Betts, 2017). In global relations, when there is any kind of disturbance while balancing the power is usually named as the prime reason for war. The level of disruption is based on triggering of global level conflict. This paper will discuss in detail about the international level of war. The essay will cover the causes of the war at varied stages. Body The important thing here is to note that the causes of war on individual level is based on the observing the human nature. As per the experts, wars happen since some aspect of human nature dominate the whole personality. Man, in his nature also looks to be more violent and further bound to inflict the harm on his or her own race. Another important reason is Greed which plays as a key element of human nature and thus seems to decide the actions that are primarily taken to gain more amount of power than the competition. This all looks to be rather primitive level of stage and can sound like caveman based attitude. But it is also important from this attitude is still and further always be part of the nature of human being. There is constant rise in criticism as well which give rise while discussing the nature of human being as main part of war and following is the main discussion based on can nature of a human being shows in right manner on the nature of the group. The theory at every p ossible level consist of moral options and are completely decided by last existing reasons that completely prelude free and the possibility of the human that have acted otherwise. The theory also says that war is out of the control of man and thus one cannot be held accountable for the same. Determinism also says that every action is pre-decided by the basic causes of the nature (Erickson et al., 2013). Man is merely playing ball controlled by various forces of nature. But, the important question here is what if humankind can be held accountable for all kind of occurrences in the war. It also seems that determinism relates to war that does not seem to be right theory. Another important feature that can be looked upon while considering the reasons of war is that of the basic nature of the society, economy and the government. As per the experts, there are certain states that possess features that make them to be the part of the war than others. There are various theories attached to i t and from liberal opinion, war is mainly caused by many autocratic states where a single person possesses infinite amount of power. As per autocratic level of point of views, wars are mainly caused by democracies. There is liberal theory which mainly claims that human being as such peace promotor. Thus, the attitude of states must follow this feature (Dewey and Rogers, 2012). There are number of democracies, election of leader by the citizens of the states, act for the civilian that are nonviolent by nature and for that factor are likely to save violent conflicts with other kind of states. Therefore, it never saves them from getting attacked by other non-democratic kind of states. As per the theory, all the democratic states that are good while all other autocratic states are evil by nature and this impacting the peace (Hewitson, 2014). The logical solution is based on the dilemma that can consist for the peace of world to prevail and all the countries must be very democratic by na ture. The answer is provided by the concept of isolation and interventionists in two distinct manner. The isolationist believed that the current reformation of autocratic states into democratic states must be accomplished by being an ideal example to follow and where interventionists also feels that democratic states should be active part of the process by attacking them if important despite states must be part of the process by attacking them if important despite standing by and waiting for the other kind of forces to strike. The basic idea for this kind of intervention will thus be that war is important for the development and existence of peace. From an outside opinion, the theory of the balance based power which can be taken up at later stage on this topic (Locke, 2014). Therefore, the important questions are why is it crucial for the democracies must be less habitual to go on war. The government requires to maintain some level of public level of support and it also depend on th e voting of the options of the citizens and in fear not to get re-elected and have policies which can satisfy the public. Yet when one becomes the part of the study of history and world based politics, it is important that one can find that many kinds of democracies actively become part of wars and for the same reason, the state based system seems to have some impact on the likelihood of war and its involvement of the state. There are also opinions that the economic system of the state that cause wars and the highly war prone states seems to be the one with capitalist based economic structure. This can further be explained by the fact that because of the overproduction, or unequal distribution of economic level of wealth and under consumption, the economy left with no choice but to expand to other nations and invest in the global market. But in predominant capitalist based economy where all international market is taken, the only method to expand the economy is to go beyond the bord ers and it must be done at the cost of other states (Buitenhuis, 2011). To expand, a state or the democratic will have to on the war. It also looks logical that the war is likely to happen at tines of financial level of distress. But economic crisis did not suddenly lead to the war, unemployment and poverty were a reason for the people to feel more inclined towards the thought of trust and an ideology that can be promised to save the living standards. There is basic level of belief that the war further creates jobs, due to arms based races and the production of other products and the improving the infrastructure. As per the experts, war can also be a way to distract the people of state from internal issues (Cohen, 2012). Whatever is the reason to cause government to make this hard decision, one should be assured that it consist of a careful decision-making procedure at many times and only if there is an opportunity of success that are high and will be there for the sake of war. Any kind of war is always used to be accepted universally to save or help allies under any kind of attack. In earlier time, it was also part of the invaded territory when the country is in need for more space because of overpopulation. The concept further played a crucial role for the country in World War II. There has been an argument by Hitler that the people of Germany needed extra space to spread the race of Arian. There is also an argument which says that survival of Darwin is based on the fittest theory that can be applied here as well. To spread the nation in the case of World War II in Germany must act and attack. The strong state will be able to survive and further impose the power on others. Another important level that must be examined is that of global sphere (Johnson, 2014). Here it is important to observe in which method states as global actors interconnect. The global system is formed of sovereign states, organization of state along with global cooperation and people. It is in a state or form of anarchy based on global government that does not present. This and the lack of force that can keep in global system dealt as an issue in international relations. There are specific actions on the side of states that can disrupt the level of equilibrium based on balance of power. Expert says that this kind of disruption can occur in the form of one state which is becoming stronger than it used to be for example, through the rise of the military level power. There are other states that feel completely threaten by this and take ideal action to save the balance (Chickering, 2015). Because of the relative level of instability in the balance and global anarchy, states are in fear of getting attacked and are thus completely prepared to save themselves at all the times. This paranoia caused continuous suspicion for every member in the global system. To decrease the fear, they are constantly looking for an option to gain some amount of power while decreasing that the opponents. War here seen as conflict solving method and it is important part of the balance of the power. The balance of power can also be a part of system of states. It is important to understand that stability exists if the opposing level of forces are in same level or at equilibrium. Conclusion The right balance of power can be highly disturbed if one power become strong via economic as well as demographic development and this further rises in military level power via alliance with other state. If this occurs, other state may perceive the station threatening and feel compelled to defend themselves. To keep one country from gaining high power, action must be taken. States also have the power of military at the disposal which can make them more inclined towards using the right amount of force which is against of an opposing power (Silberner, 2015). Normally, it is part of the balance which is not desired for states and if there is any kind of guarantee to gain success in global war, this phenomenon will be a common or normal happening. It is also important to understand in this case one should be sure of the success and the overall price that one might pay for such decision can be far high and the second-best alternative is based on maintaining a balance of power and with-it peace. Reference Betts, R.K. ed., 2017.Conflict after the Cold War: arguments on causes of war and peace. Taylor Francis. Buitenhuis, P., 2011.The Great War of words: British, American and Canadian propaganda and fiction, 1914-1933. ubc Press. Chickering, R., 2015.Imperial Germany and a World Without War: The Peace Movement and German Society, 1892-1914. Princeton University Press. Cohen, E.A., 2012.Military misfortunes: The anatomy of failure in war. Simon and Schuster. Dewey, J. and Rogers, M.L., 2012.The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. Penn State Press. Erickson, P., Klein, J.L., Daston, L., Lemov, R., Sturm, T. and Gordin, M.D., 2013.How reason almost lost its mind: The strange career of Cold War rationality. University of Chicago Press. Hewitson, M., 2014.Germany and the causes of the First World War. Bloomsbury Publishing. Johnson, J.T., 2014.Just war tradition and the restraint of war: a moral and historical inquiry. Princeton University Press. Locke, J., 2014.Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. John Wiley Sons. Silberner, E., 2015.The Problem of War. Princeton University Press.