Does might make right? Of course not! If our world was like that, it would be ran by a big bully. Some country that built up nuclear weapons and said, "Okay, I want to run the world." Then make it's own laws and rule everything. It is hard to agree or disagree with Mr. Valaskakis" thesis however as it is such a conditional issue. Sometimes other stronger countries must start a war enable to set something right. But then again sometimes doing that is wrong.
Mr. Valaskakis says in one statement that pre-emptive strikes are alright as long as they are started by a strong power against a very weak one. I totally disagree with that, just because someone is bigger and stronger then you doesn't mean they know better then you. Everyone should be aloud their own opinions where they are all viewed equally no matter how big or small they may be. He goes on to say that if the cause is good then pre-emptive strikes are okay. I do agree with that opinion seeing as sometimes other countries must step in to make things right. .
When a country pre-emptively strikes another, this is a case of civil disobedience. However, is it always wrong or can it be justified? I believe civil disobedience can be justified but only for one sole reason. If the strike was for a moral reason, then and only then should it be alright. Not because a country just wants more land or resources, it would have to be a situation where serious lives are at risk. .
Kind of coincidental that this very paper is due on September 11. That is an excellent example of civil disobedience, that is justified. It is also an example of how it can be taken to far as well. On September 11, 2003 , a terrorist act was committed against the United States led by Osama Bin Laden. Thousands were killed in the world trade center as well as people on the planes that went down too. Thousands of innocent lives were gone, just for being an American citizen! The United States had no choice but to strike back.
