war has no winners essay

popular homework editor website au

Year after year, we review dozens of reader nominations, revisit sites from past lists, consider staff favorites, and search the far-flung corners of the web for new celebration of new year essay for a varied compilation that will prove an asset to any writer, of any genre, at any experience level. This selection represents this year's creativity-centric websites for writers. These websites fuel out-of-the-box thinking and help writers awaken their choke palahnuik and literary analysis. Be sure to check out the archives for references to innovative techniques and processes from famous thinkers like Einstein and Darwin. The countless prompts, how-tos on guided imagery and creative habits, mixed-media masterpieces, and more at Creativity Portal have sparked imaginations for more than 18 years. Boost your literary credentials by submitting your best caption for the stand-alone cartoon to this weekly choke palahnuik and literary analysis from The New Yorker. The top three captions advance to a public vote, and the winners will be included in a future issue of the magazine.

War has no winners essay essays examine

War has no winners essay

When a war sweeps through a continent or country, nothing is left intact in its wake. If war brings about such negative effects then, why do countries still go to war? Since the beginning of time, Man has learnt to solve their problems and conflicts by the use of violence — cavemen using clubs and stones fighting against each other for possession of women, food and territory is an everyday affair.

Countries use war as a last resort when all else fails, it seems that by the use of military might, they hope to be able to suppress the weaker countries and make them conform. Some countries go to war when they do not like each other, when one country gets in the way of the other in territorial or economical conquest, it is time for someone to be obliterated.

No one seems to be willing to give way or to accept resolutions as offered by third party nations. The phrase Action speaks louder than words does have its place here. What better way to solve a problem other than solving it yourself? Perhaps that is why the League of Nations or the now United Nations never seems to be able to stop all wars.

War seems like a likely solution to inter-country conflicts. When we talk about war, the two greatest wars that ever happened in history that will immediately come to one s mind are World War One and World War Two World War One was a war without parallel — its scale of destruction eclipsed all previous wars ever known to mankind, at least that was the case before World War Two. Austria-Hungary was not happy the way Serbia dealt with the murder of its Arch-duke and decided to take military action.

Austria-Hungary just did not want to resolve the problems using peaceful means and just wanted to win Serbia in a physical conflict. The Allied Powers won after 4 years of bloodshed. As they say, Man never learns from his mistakes. World War Two soon erupted in less than twenty years.

It was a war of even great scale, with battlegrounds all over the globe. It was not only a power struggle between Europe s great powers but also Asian powers. This was truly an even greater war than World War One. Hitler wanted more land, resources and power to his country and people, so he went to war and took over what he wanted.

In the end, the Allied Nations defeated him. But at what cost, may I ask? Personally, I do not see the Allied Powers as winners, they might have won the war, but they have a very much higher about 10 million! No one wins, everybody loses, that s what I see. How can a country claim to be the winner when it has lost millions of precious lives of its citizens? How can a winner be a winner when he has annihilated millions of lives of his opposition?

When we look at World War Two, to prevent a long, bloody invasion of Japan and to end World War Two, President Truman coerced Japan into surrendering by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with two nuclear bombs, killing about , people and many more suffered from the effects of nuclear radiation if they are not dead.

So the United States won the War against Japan, by killing , people? That is hardly an act of a winner, you are not a winner when you have just devastated two countries with nuclear bombs, taking away millions of lives of their citizens. Winning should not involve the taking of any lives, it is grossly unacceptable to claim that the war has been won by killing millions of lives of your opposition. If the winners of wars are not the winners, then does it make the losers the winners?

I do not think so. They have lost too. They have lost their civilians, their armies, their territories, their resources and their pride. It is thus important to resolve the conflicts through negotiations to avoid mutual losses of both nations. Introduction: Wars are often fought to resolve conflicts, to show power or even for a righteous cause. Body: People always lose in the war: Loss of lives- War results in deaths of civilians and soldiers. This loss can never be repaid. Loss of infrastructure- Huge infrastructure losses, especially near border regions.

Economic loss- Resources meant for welfare are diverted for war, which results into economic backwardness. Cultural loss- Culture of both nations takes a setback. Social loss- Social tensions, conflicts and wartime crimes impact the social fabric of the country.

Really. All persuasive essay in school agree, remarkable


Does not custom custom essay writers for hire for college