No Such Thing as a Fair Fight

No Such Thing As a Fair Fight

In Jimmy Carter's editorial to the New York Times, he states his reasons as to why he believes America should not have gone to war with Iraq, and he outlines what he thinks makes a war just. Carter conveys what he is saying, stating clear facts, and appealing to the reader's ethos, pathos and logos. In a very different essay author Elie Wiesel supports Presidents Bush's decision to engage in military action on Iraq. Wiesel uses facts from history to illustrate how military action can stop bloodshed in volatile situations.

Throughout Carter's editorial he continues to point out the fact that he is Christian, in an effort to make the American people see that there is validity to what he is saying. By first identifying himself as a credible witness to what is going on. Carter states, "As a Christian and as a President who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet those standards"(259). Carter says this is a way to let the American people know that he is a Christian and therefore has the same morals and beliefs as they do. People can relate to what he is saying because many U.S. citizens are Christians; thus his appeal to the people by talking about his religious views works. His main goal in this editorial is to get people to understand his viewpoint on the war in Iraq, and by stating that hes is a Christian and therefore believes a certain way, the people who read this paper will understand why he believes we should not be in this war, based upon Christian beliefs. He is appealing to his audience by placing himself in a similar situation as they are.

In Wiesel's essay he to relates himself to the audience by saying "Though I oppose war, I am in favor of intervention when, as in this case because of Hussein's equivocations and procrastinations, no other option remains." (263) Wiesel does this to show that he is not one to think that war is the answer to everything. He also states at the very beginning of his essay "Under normal circumstances, I might have joined those peace marchers who, here and abroad, staged a public demonstrations against an invasion of Iraq" (262). Wiesel is trying to make a connection with the liberalist that are very anti-Bush and show those people that they need to support actions that are taking place in Iraq to avoid further bloodshed.

Also, in a few different areas of his editorial, Carter reverts back to saying that he was a president and has been in George W. Bush's situation before. He does this so as to establish credibility with his readers. His editorial functions well because of this. By expressing to his readers that he knows what he is talking about he is able to get his point across more effectively. He points out the fact that he was a president, so that when he states his opinions throughout the editorial, the reader knows he has been in the situation before. Carter states, "The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even form formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; whether or not they agree with it. It also allows the people to better understand our situation with other countries. Carter talks about the situation that we as a nation have put ourselves in, alienating us from other countries, who did not support the invasion of Iraq: "Despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations" (260).

Wiesel brings his own personal past into his essay to give his opinion credibility "Had Europe's great powers intervened against Adolf Hitler's aggressive ambitions in 1938 instead of appeasing him in Munich, humanity would have been spared the unprecedented horrors of World War II." (263). Wiesel attempt to establish credibility with the reader is much less effective than Carters simply because of the fact that Carter was the president of the United States of America. When you have that as your credentials it is hard to beat, it means you have been one of the most powerful men in the world. Wiesel uses his own history and other countries history to justify President Bush's actions. "The recent past shows that only military intervention stopped bloodshed in the Balkans and destroyed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Moreover, had the international Community intervened in Rwanda, more than 800,000 men, women and children would not have perished there." (263) These examples are very hard to argue with, this is a very effective play on the readers Logos and Pathos. The human compassion is forced to the surface of the situation when Wiesel tells how hundred of thousands of women and children were killed by blood thirsty dictators take control of a country.

In another part of the article, Carter also argues, "The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment" (260). This statement coming from another source could be