Hello. Here is my new essay. I will be happy if anyone corrects it and adds any comments. See my other essays as well.PeacePeace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding
The USA considers attacking Iran in order to prevent it from gaining a nuclear bomb. Very similar scenario could be seen a few years earlier when George Bush executed the attack against Iraq which developed into a long-lasting bloodshed. I hope that this mistake will not repeat. Whatever point of view you prefer - moral, economic or political - none of them seems to have any convincing argument for being so. Nevertheless, if a lack of decency connected with economic reasons, they would form a solid pretext for aggressive politicians. So as to acquire Iran's oil, world rulers would unite and strike jointly. Massive counter-attack would be performed by Iran, possibly with some help of other anti-American countries. Vicious circle could continue in its destructive work. The USA governors are prone to solve world problems in a military way even if it's not inevitable. They should learn to respect other countries' freedom apart from their own, or at least rule the world with the same measure for everyone. Does China have nuclear bombs? Does USA assail it? No, it wouldn't be very tactical - China is stronger both in its economy and army. Did Eastern Europe suffer under the Soviet ruling? Indeed. Did America help? No. I really detest this opportunistic blather about protecting the world from lethal threat. After all, it's all about the money.
In contrast, some cases demand an application of force to sustain lawful acting. I'm talking about the police. However some may raise an objection that the police occupy themselves merely with fining disobedient drivers, no one can genuinely disbelieve in its safety assets. In ideal state, there would be no need of police, but provided that the most of us live in non-ideal country, somebody must maintain order, even though it was by force. Hopefully, one day, the necessity of policemen standing at every corner will disappear as the people become honest and fair-minded and then the idea of paradise in the Earth would be not far from fulfilled.
To summarise my thoughts, from one point Einstein's words prove to be doubtless. Conversely, at some situations, they cannot be employed; policemen have to arrest murderers using violent methods if unavoidable, because it truly contributes to keeping peace. Finally, for sincere peaceful living of every citizen, they should admire the values of their society and do nothing against law which would provoke power to demonstrate its impact on them.
I'm not really too crazy about your first sentence. It kind of makes the reader think "What are they talking about?"
"Whatever point of view you prefer - moral, economic or political - none of them seems to have any convincing argument for being so.".. should be morally, economically, or politically.. All the endings have to be the same "moral, economic, or political" all have different tenses.
It has good details and evidence, but needs major help grammar-wise. Proofread it over and over and rewrite. Take every sentence and dissect it. Ask yourself, "If I were having a conversation and reading this sentence, would I want to sound like this?" After you think you've made good progress, get an English teacher to give it one last look. Good luck!
Your ideas are too scattered and uninstantiated. Try to discuss a smaller picture rather than taking on the larger, it's much easier to sell if you know what I mean. It's difficult to talk about international democracy and war acts without huge evidence and complete examples. If you want to use America as an example, focus on Afghanistan and Iraq, with the prospect for a future forced encounter with China, but back it up straightaway with a solid example (do some research). I certainly recommend a redo, because your current paper is not going to get you the mark that you want. Don't stress, just think about it first. Also, I personally detest essays that start with a quote; there are many other ways to get your point across.
Thanks to both of you. I've rewritten the beginning. I' definitely going to do some more thorough research. Unfortunately, I don't have any English teacher at disposal, which is the reason why I post my essays here. As for the quote, it's a part of the task, so I really cannot change it, however, to make you at least a little happy I'm not posting the quote, again.
Thank you. If you had time to correct my grammar, or add another comments, I would appreciate it.
The world's political leaders as well as analysts consider attacking Iran to be an option of maintaining safety. They are afraid of its nuclear programme, probably containing a bomb development, and they want to cease it violently. I'm convinced that violence never leads to a painless and successful solution for it has failed many times before. You may remember wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which should have been quick, helpful interventions, but turned out terribly; helping ended as bloodshed. With the information I have, nothing can persuade me out of conviction that these military actions are morally unjustifiable. Although some analysts assess the potential threat great enough to use power, economic reasons prevail in their opinions and arguments; dangerousness seems to be merely pretext for seizing control over Iran's oil supplies. I'm not sure whether possible financial benefits are sufficient compensations for neglecting moral rules; however some people don't really care about ethics.
Furthermore, war with Iran would show immensely expensive, as the previous ones mentioned, which would mean a heavy burden for the aggressors. Finally, the expenses would overwhelm the assets; like in Iraq and Afghanistan, again. In addition, the world's ruling powers should learn to respect weaker countries' freedom. Having a nuclear bomb doesn't necessarily imply using it - Russia, USA, China, France, United Kingdom, and Israel - all of these states own nuclear heads, and even though they are free of any assaults at all. Why are they allowed whereas the others, e. g. Iran, are not? Inequality causes anger; anger causes aggressiveness. Maybe, if developed countries gave up their nuclear weapons first, Iran and others would follow their example. In fact, Iran follows their example, even now. They are armed; Iran arms, too. Could this model work for disarmament? Most likely, we shall never know.