WAR DOESNT SHOW WHO IS RIGHT JUST WHOS LEFT

PRESENTED BY HUNAR PRATAP SINGH GILL

It's a play on words. The "right" and "left" associated as in directions. "Right" can also mean "correct" or "justified." "Left" can also mean "remaining." War does not determine who is correct (right) War determines who remains afterward (left) So instead of saying "War does not determine who is right, it determines who is wrong . . . ," which is what we might at first expect, it plays with the words and is meant to be ironic.

 The purpose of war is to gain things or protect

things. The only value of war is to gain or protect land and/or its resources. That's why they have always been fought, why they are fought today, and why they should be fought.

EFFECT OF WAR
War's long-term effects The close proximity of people in wartime conditions meant diseases such as tuberculosis could easily spread. The exertion of battle could highlight other health problems including asthma and heart conditions. Emotional problems caused by war: shell shock The First World War is often associated with the syndrome called shell shock. This was originally believed to have a physical origin, caused by the impact of loud shelling.

Psychological testing: assessing the suitability of soldiers Many demonstrated symptoms of high levels of stress, a condition referred to as battle fatigue. These soldiers were removed from the fighting and rested. A number of men and women were discharged from the forces in the Second World War as they were considered unsuitable for the military. War syndromes: the impact of war on behaviour and the mind Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was the term used after 1980 to explain the effect of war on soldiers and was later used outside the military to describe the impact of a traumatic event on an individual.

Wartime health of populations: radiation in Japan War can also have a dramatic impact on the health of civilian populations. The hydrogen bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a horrendous immediate impact, killing thousands. Children and war Civilians, particularly children, can also suffer the effects of trauma. Child psychoanalysisemerged during the Second World War from the work of Anna Freud, psychoanalyst and daughter of Sigmund Freud.

The after effects of war for the population Civilian populations often have to deal with the after effects of war. They include damage to infrastructure such as hospitals and to medical care, often a result of a shortage of doctors. A number of countries, especially in Asia, have had to deal with the devastating effects of land mines on the local population.

Facts: During the war, factories stopped producing many

durable goods and switched to arms manufacturing.

Essential things were rationed: gasoline, heating oil,

cooking oil, rubber tires, etc. Wars typically bring inflation, or in the case of Europe, hyperinflation. That's when people had to bring a wheelbarrow of cash (literally) to buy a loaf of bread, and two wheelbarrows if they waited until after work...

 Loss of electricity, loss of access to water, loss of

access to medicine; these frequently accompany wars. This affects the health of all civilians.
Crimes like murder, looting, and rape often occur in

warzones.

 All of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were erased in an

instant in the Pacific War, many battle-torn cities in Europe *looked* like an atomic bomb had hit. That means, people have lost their shops, stores, livelihoods, homes.
War comes at an enormous cost to those who live

within the warzone, near it, and even overseas from it.

INCREASE IN ALLOCATIONS TO THE DEFENCE BUDGET

Humanity will always go to war, it is human nature. We

must not be complacent. Eternal vigilance is the only thing that keeps us safe. Totalitarian Communist China is consumed with nationalist fervor and expansionist thirst. It is aiming to increase its Naval spending at a rate of three times its rate of GDP growth (its GDP growth is already very high).

 Many many many MANY times throughout history,

entire populations of people of been slain and/or enslaved because they didn't spend enough money on Defence.

The day will come again when the choice will have to

be made between liberty and slavery, between freedom and death, between war and extermination.

THE CRISIS IN ARAB WORLD, INDO PAK BILATERAL ISSUES, US CONFLICTS IN AFGHANISTAN

CRISIS IN ARAB WORLD Series of military conflicts fought between various Arab countries and Israel (194849, 1956, 1967, 196970, 1973, and 1982). The first war (194849) began when Israel declared itself an independent state following the United Nations' partition of Palestine. Protesting this move, five Arab countries Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syriaattacked Israel. The conflict ended with Israel gaining considerable territory.

 An undeclared war of attrition (196970) was fought between Egypt and

Israel along the Suez Canal and ended with the help of international diplomacy.
Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), but,

despite early Arab success, the conflict ended inconclusively. In 1979 Egypt made peace with Israel.
In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon in order to expel Palestinian guerrillas

based there.
Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon by 1985 but maintained a

narrow buffer zone inside that country until 2000.

2010present Following the latest round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, 13 Palestinian militant movements led by Hamas initiated a terror campaign designed to derail and disrupt the negotiations. The governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Netherlands expressed support for Israel's right to defend itself, and/or condemned the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.

Cost of conflict A report by Strategic Foresight Group has estimated the opportunity cost of conflict for the Middle East from 19912010 at $12 trillion. The report's opportunity cost calculates the peace GDP of countries in the Middle East by comparing the current GDP to the potential GDP in times of peace.

 From September 29, 2000 to October 2, 2012, 7,714

deaths occurred as a direct result of the conflict. Of these deaths, 6,617 Palestinians and 1,097 Israelis were killed. In the same time period, 1,447 Palestinian children were killed, along with 129 Israeli children. The numbers also do not include Israeli troops who were killed by friendly fire, nor Palestinian militants killed by explosives set on their person.

INDO PAK BILATERAL ISSUES

Relations between India and Pakistan have

been strained by a number of historical and political issues, and are defined by the violent partition of British India in 1947, the Kashmir dispute and the numerous military conflicts fought between the two nations. Consequently, even though the two South Asian nations share historic, cultural, geographic, and economic links, their relationship has been plagued by hostility and suspicion.

 Soon after their independence, India and Pakistan

established diplomatic relations but the violent partition and numerous territorial disputes would overshadow their relationship. Since their independence, the two countries have fought three major wars, one undeclared war and have been involved in numerous armed skirmishes and military standoffs. The Kashmir dispute is the main centre-point of all of these conflicts with the exception of the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, which resulted in the secession of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

 There have been numerous attempts to improve the

relationshipnotably, the Shimla summit, the Agra summit and the Lahore summit. Since the early 1980s, relations between the two nations soured particularly after the Siachen conflict, the intensification of Kashmir insurgency in 1989, Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in 1998 and the 1999 Kargil war. Certain confidence-building measures such as the 2003 ceasefire agreement and the DelhiLahore Bus service were successful in deescalating tensions.

 The 2001 Indian Parliament attack almost brought

the two nations on the brink of a nuclear war. The 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, which killed 68 civilians (most of whom were Pakistani), was also a crucial point in relations. Additionally, the 2008 Mumbai attacks carried out by Pakistani militants resulted in a severe blow to the ongoing India-Pakistan peace talks.

Mutual security concerns the main point of contention between India and Pakistan Security is a problem, but it is never an independent issue There are security concerns in the sense that the Durand Line is a porous border, but there are larger dynamics at play here as well. Indias recent push towards militarisation have on bilateral relations India wants to maintain parity with China, hence the militarisation. This can cut both ways with regards to Pakistan. On the one hand, the dispute with Pakistan could become a huge distraction that India seeks to rid itself of.

China influence the India-Pakistan dynamic China wants to maintain some balance of power in South Asia; Beijing doesnt want India to dominate the region. But the Chinese position towards Pakistan has undergone a radical change since the 1980s. On the Kashmir issue, for example, China no longer supports Pakistans position, and instead adopts the exact same position as the United States or Britainthat Kashmir is a disputed territory and that India and Pakistan should solve the problem through negotiation.

Trade facilitate improved India-Pakistan relations India and Pakistan have such little economic contact that if the situation between the two countries worsens, no group on either side of the border complains that it is being adversely affectedno one suffers a loss if relations remain strained, and this is a problem. Competition for increasingly scarce water resources in South Asia further strain India-Pakistan relations The growing shortage of water is a cause of concern across Asia, not just for India and Pakistan. In this context, the Indus Water Treaty has been a major triumph, but it crucially depends on understanding and interpretation.

India-Pakistan relations tenor dictated by domestic politics on both sides of the border Domestic political concerns do play a major role in dictating the state of the relationship. For example, in India case it is easier for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to come to an agreement with Pakistan because they cannot be attacked from the right, whereas Congress has to tread more carefully. Opportunities exist for improving India-Pakistan bilateral ties For India, energy will be key to the regional equation. India is the main energy consumer in the region while Iran and Central Asia have surplus energy to offer. Pakistan offers the main transport route for energy to India, which could be an incentive for improving ties.

US CONFLICTS IN AFGHANISTAN
The War in Afghanistan (2001present) refers to

the intervention in the Afghan Civil War by the United States and its allies, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to dismantle Al-Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden To remove from power the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist regime led by MullahMohammed Omar, which at the time controlled 90% of Afghanistan and hosted Al-Qaeda leadership. U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden and al-Qaeda leadership which was supporting the Taliban in its war with the Northern Alliance.

 The U.S. and its allies quickly drove the Taliban from

power and captured all major cities and towns in the country. Many Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders escaped to neighboring Pakistan or retreated to rural or remote mountainous regions. At the Bonn Conference in December 2001, Hamid Karzai was selected to head the Afghan Interim Administration, which after a loya jirga in Kabul in June 2002, became the Afghan Transitional Administration. In the popular elections of 2004, Karzai was elected the president of the new permanent Afghan government, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

 In 2004, the Pakistani Army began to clash with local

tribes hosting Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. The U.S. military began to launch air strikes and then drone strikes into the region, targeting at first Al-Qaeda and later the local "Pakistan Taliban" leaders, which launched an insurgency in Waziristan in 2007. On 2 May 2011, U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. On 21 May 2012 the leaders of the NATO-member countries endorsed an exit strategy for removing NATO soldiers from Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians have lost their lives in the war.

LEADERS ACTIVALY INVOLVED IN PEACE TALKS IN AREAS OF CONFLICT

Peace begets peace. War begets war. When our

leaders learn how to achieve peace by peaceful means, in due time we will have peace in the entire world. The underlying cause of war is fear, ignorance, greed, selfishness, and the lust for power. Truth is the ultimate solution.

Peace Links urges President Bush to include peacemakers along with military advisors in discussions about terrorist attacks. Here is their recommended list: Kofi Annan, Former Secretary General of the United Nations Betty Bumpers, founder of Peace Links Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica, Nobel Peace Prize 1987 Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, Nobel Peace Prize 1989 Aung Sun Suu Kyi, leader of the democracy movement in Burma, Nobel Peace Prize 1991 Father Theodore Hesburgh, former President of Notre Dame University Dr. Desmond Tutu, South African bishop, Nobel Peace Prize 1984 Elie Wiesel, author, Nobel Peace Prize 1986

WAGING WAR IS IT NECESSARY AT TIMES?

War is necessary when the outcome benefits the

greater good of the people who are involved, for example in feudal Japan the country was split into numerous factions with different warlords called shoguns who ruled certain areas. These warlords would war with each other over trivial matters with no apparent end to the cycle of pointless deaths.

 From that war we learned a terrible lesson and

sometimes it takes a war to teach us that turning a blind eye to a maniac bent on world domination might not be a good idea, or dropping the biggest bomb doesn't always mean that you've won, we might have stopped the war but we lost a lot more than a war, we lost hundreds of thousands of innocent people's lives that never took one shot at us and didn't even want the war.
So in conclusion I would like to say that war is wrong in every sense of the word, but war is very much necessary for the growth and preservation of society.

CONCLUSION
Country's don't sit down to listen to each other in order

to have peace, and to see each others side of the story. It's just who has the largest army and which every one is standing at the end wins. Basically, they fight with their guns and other weapons instead of their most powerful muscle in their bodies, their brains. It is true that the victor of a war is not necessarily the one who is morally right. The army with the most strength wins. However, being right has it's advantages.

THANK YOU