Us War Against Iraq Essay Example for Free

Us War Against Iraq Essay The Bush Administration in June of 2003 first attacked but than later withdrew its troops from Syria. There was no significant explanation for this act by the United States. This was a pure and simple aggression. Than later in August of 2003 George Bush told his people that he is going to launch a more destructive attack on his arch rivals around the world. Than George Bush was approving Israel’s leader Ariel Sharon act of aggression against the Lebanon’s, Palestine’s and Syrians. The World War 3 was not far away at this point. In the beginning of 2004, in the presidential campaign George Bush clearly pointed out the clear picture of the prospect on more aggression on different countries. Was this extra aggression a way for George Bush to win his first Election? Or he wanted to steal the Presidency of United States from the people of America like he did in 2000? When the Bush Jr. administrations aggression against Iraq was over, the United States and the United Kingdom became the â€Å"belligerent occupants† of Iraq in accordance with, and subject to the requirements of, the laws of war. Bush Jr. s May 1, 2003 â€Å"end of major combat operations† speech on the deck of a U. S. aircraft carrier was nothing more than a cheap campaign and legally deceptive propaganda stunt. Succinctly put, these legal rules of war can be found in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, its Additional Protocol One of 1977, the Hague Regulations of 1907, and U. S. Army Field Manual 27–10 (1956), which require, inter alia, the preservation of Iraqs constitutional and domestic legal order. Nevertheless, the Bush Jr. administration made it crystal clear that they were going to remake Iraq in their own image and thus not pay the least bit of attention to the laws of war. This has entailed a range of policies which would further U. S. /U. K. interests while seeking to drastically curtail future Iraqi options, e. g. , â€Å"privatization† of the Iraqi economy, including and especially its oil industry; drafting a new constitution for Iraq to determine the nature and extent of its democracy; re-writing Iraqs laws; establishing ad hoc war crimes tribunals along the lines of the Bush Jr. kangaroo courts in Guantanamo; de-Baathification; indoctrinating Iraqi schoolchildren with American propaganda through extensive â€Å"reform† of its education system; etc. All of this serves to put the future of Iraq up for sale to the lowest American (and then British and Israeli) bidders. Such violations of the laws of war are war crimes, establishing the legal predicate for a legitimate Iraqi government in the future to repudiate them all. Oil and Gas as the Key to Global Dominance There is no denying that oil was at the top of the Bush Jr. / Sr. hit-list and the fact that Iraq possesses about 11% of the worlds oil reserves. Indeed, prior thereto it was the thirst and lust for oil and natural gas by the American power elite that really propelled the Bush Jr. administrations aggression against Afghanistan: the need to gain direct access to the rich oil and natural gas fields of Central Asia, which marked the first exploitation of the terrible tragedy of September 11 as public justification for a pre-planned war of aggression under the pretext of â€Å"combating international terrorism. Though according to the Bush Jr. administrations version of events, 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were from Saudi Arabia, for some mysterious reason America had to attack, invade, and occupy Afghanistan. Bush administration functionaries continue to lie, cover up, and obstruct investigations into who was ultimately responsible for the terrible tragedy of September 11, and why no one in the Bush Jr. administration acted to prevent it despite numerous, repeated, and widespread warnings beforehand from American as well as European diplomats and agencies. We are witnessing a Pearl Harbor cover-up all over again. The Bush Jr. Wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq must be understood as part of a major grab by the United States government for global energy resources and the attendant power to be derived from controlling about two-thirds of the worlds oil and natural gas supplies located around this Eurasian heartland. Such an assault had been contemplated and planned by the U. S. power elite for quite some time, dating back to the Kissinger threat and plan to steal the Arab oil fields in reaction to the 1973 Arab oil embargo of the West for assisting Israel in its war to hold on to the Arab lands Israel had illegally stolen in its 1967 aggressions against the surrounding Arab states and peoples. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the disintegration of the Soviet Union provided the U. S. power elite with the opportunity to put their Machiavellian scheme for world economic hegemony into operation. But the Bush Jr. Wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq must be seen as more than the seizure of oil for domestic consumption. Rather, they are components of a longstanding American plan to control and dominate the oil and natural gas supplies for Europe, Japan, and Asia, and thus the future of the worlds economy—a project my teacher, mentor, and later friend, the late and great Professor Hans Morgenthau once denominated as â€Å"unlimited imperialism† in his classic work Politics Among Nations. Tied into this was the subsidiary objective of making sure that oil continues to be paid for in dollars instead of Euros on the open market. The Bush Sr. 1991 war against Iraq for oil was the first battle in the U. S. quest for world economic hegemony. These subsequent events must be viewed in the same light: the Bush Sr. invasion of Somalia; the Clinton/ Bush Jr. military intervention into Colombia; Bush Jr. s support for the anti Chavez failed coup in oil-rich Venezuela; the post-9/11 U. S. military intervention into and occupation of Djibouti in order to control the Suez Canal/ Persian Gulf oil route to Europe, and also to obtain direct military access to the oil and natural gas resources around the Horn of Africa; the August 2003 U. S. military intervention into Liberia, once again to grab direct military access to the oil and natural gas resources located off and on the West Coast of Africa; etc. Whatever the public rhetoric or justification might be, the fact of the matter is that if the reader looks at a map of the world, the United States government has its military, paramilitary, and covert forces converging upon and/or threatening almost every country in the world that possesses significant quantities of oil or natural gas, as well as their transportation supply-lines and the latters choke-points. Many of these energy-resource-rich countries just happen to be Muslim. That reveals what Huntingtons infamous â€Å"Clash of Civilizations† was really all about. Our clash is their civilization. After September 11, Bush Jr. himself proudly boasted that he was going on a Crusade. Certainly that is the way the Muslim world sees it: an American fundamentalist mission to remake â€Å"world order† in Americas imperialist image—not as democracies, but as client or even failed states—while fomenting world disorder in the process. In this relentless quest and insatiable lust for oil and gas around the world, the United States power elite is now in the process of destroying the entirety of the international legal order that had been established by a predecessor elitist generation running the United States government in the aftermath of and in reaction to the genocidal horrors of the Second World War. Most particularly and especially, this includes, inter alia, the United Nations Charter, as well as the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, all of which had heretofore been the bedrock upon which the entirety of the post-World War II international legal order rested. Preventive Warfare: The Nazi Precedent Iraq had been continuously and illegally bombed by the United States and the United Kingdom since the end of the Bush Sr. Gulf War in 1991 under the pretext of enforcing unauthorized and clearly illegal no-fly zones. But in order to accomplish their objective of seizing Iraq outright, the Bush Jr. warmongers had to articulate another operational rationale for a war of aggression that they could then sell to the American people and Congress that was separate and apart from their fatuous â€Å"war against international terrorism. † So they resurrected the long-ago discredited Nazi doctrine of â€Å"preventive warfare,† once again using the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001 as a pretext for doing so. The first overt step in their plan was the Bush Jr. aggressive threat to Iraq uttered during the course of his State of the Union Address to the United States Congress on 29 January 2002, in which he branded Iraq as part of a so-called â€Å"axis of evil† along with Iran and North Korea. By means of employing this provocative language harkening back to the World War II â€Å"axis† of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, the Bush Jr. administration was deliberately preparing the ground for bogus claims to launch preventive wars against all three of these U. N. member states. Iraq was at the top of the Bush Jr. hit list. Having been materially and psychologically debilitated by over a decade of genocidal economic sanctions imposed upon its people by the United Nations Security Council acting at the behest of the United States and the United Kingdom, Iraq and its oil fields were finally ripe for the imperial picking by Bush Jr. and his right-hand henchman, Tony Blair. By contrast, North Korea and Iran could be expected to defend themselves by inflicting enormous casualties against an aggressor. As on the Southside of Chicago, bullies prefer to pick upon hapless victims. The Nazi doctrine of preventive warfare was publicly articulated by President Bush Jr. in his 1 June 2002 commencement address at the West Point Military Academy. Then in late August of 2002, Vice President Cheney signaled the formal commencement of the Bush Jr. war of aggression against Iraq by giving two public speeches before the Veterans of Foreign Wars (Aug. 26) and the Korean War Veterans (Aug. 29) in which he too publicly touted the Nazi doctrine of preventive warfare against Iraq. The U. S. news media were too obeisant to observe that though warmongering for a war against Iraq before these former soldiers who had actually gone to war, Cheney had ducked out of the Vietnam War, as had Bush, Jr. Wolfowitz and the rest of the Bush Jr. administrations Straussian Neo-Con cabal were too busy studying Machiavelli and Nietzsche with Strauss, Bloom, and their acolytes from the University of Chicago. Unlike the WWII American power elite, many of whose sons actually fought in combat (e. g. , Bush Sr. ), the contemporary American power elite prefers to send the children of poor blacks, Latinos, and whites off to kill and be killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, as did their elitist predecessors a generation ago in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Indeed a Class war. Finally, in September 2002 the Bush Jr. Administration officially approved and adopted the â€Å"National Security Strategy of the United States,† fully embracing this reprehensible, criminal, and Nazi doctrine of preventive warfare, and transmitted it to the U. S. Congress as a declaration of official policy by the United States of America.. Certainly its most odious language is: â€Å"†¦ we recognize that our best defense is a good offense†¦Ã¢â‚¬  In other words, the United States government has publicly admitted in an official government document that it is now prepared to wage offensive warfare against adversaries of its choosing around the world irrespective of the requirements of, inter alia, the United Nations Charter, the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, as well as the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles. This official U. S. government document could be filed with the International Court of Justice in The Hague as proof-positive that it is now the official policy of the United States government to wage criminal wars of aggression against other U. N. member states in violation of the most elementary principles of the contemporary international legal order that would be too numerous to list here. The document is nothing less than what lawyers call an â€Å"Admission against Interest. † In brief, the Bush Jr. administration has officially incriminated the United States of America under international law and practice. Such is the arrogance of Power—which usually spells its downfall! Even more disturbingly, while it was publicly campaigning for a war of aggression against Iraq, in December 2002 the Bush Jr. administration released its so-called â€Å"National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,† which was published on the web-page for the White House itself. This supplementary Nazi war plan calls for the first use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)–-chemical, biological, and nuclear—by the United States government under the justification of waging a preventive or preemptive war. Of course this Nazi Doctrine of Preventive Warfare is nothing more than a pretext for waging a war of aggression in the first place. So the Bush Jr. administration officially signaled that it is fully prepared to be the first to use WMD. It would do so against its chosen adversaries around the world as part of an offensive military operation, or even to launch a full-scale war itself, thereby evoking shades of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! North Korea took notice and responded accordingly to defend itself. Reference Page †¢ James Moore (2004) Book Title: Bushs War for Reelection: Iraq, the White House, and the People. Publisher: Wiley. Place of Publication: Hoboken, NJ.

A Comparison of John Donnes A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning, and An

A Contrast of John Donne's "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning", and Andrew Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress" The stereotype of poetry is that poems are written to exemplify a relationship between two people who are so infatuated with each other it is said that they are "in love" and this can give meaning to what is commonly referred to as a love poem. Poets John Donne and Andrew Marvell write such poetry however, their poems "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning", and "To His Coy Mistress", consider two different concepts. Although they are addressing love, they are dealing with different aspects of it.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The two poems can be contrasted in form, poetic devices such as symbols, tone, rhyme, and the rhythmical pattern. Symbols and tone can often encourage the reader to look for underlying mental representations that will connect them to the text to put different elements like the mood of the writer or hidden motives into perspective. The form and rhyme scheme can be applied to the person the poem is addressing, and when analyzed further, it can determine unconscious feelings and meanings that may be expressed by the writer. When using a certain rhythmical pattern, the writer can point out exactly how he feels about his subject.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Donne's poem is in stanzaic form and the rhyming scheme is ABAB, CDCD, etc. In lines one through four, "As virtuous men pass mildly away, / The breath goes now, and some say, no", the rhyming words: "away", "go", "say", and "no" because of the repetition of sounds can already make the reader feel bored. The words themselves can also reflect a negative feeling of being unwanted. These bland, organized sentences and the rhyme patterns show the speaker's unattached attitude, and take away from the excitement of the subject of love.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Marvell's poem uses continuous rhyming couplets to illustrate love's unconventional and irrational aspects, as love usually is. They take two separate lines and make a matching pair out of them. Often he uses words that can symbolize togetherness like "all" and "ball" as he writes:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Let us roll all our strength and all   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Our sweetness up into one ball   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  And tear our pleasures with rough strife,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Thorough the iron gates of life. (41-44) This rhyme scheme can make a relation to two people, a couple, joining together.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Donne uses symbols ... ...her depressing, such as one would use when separating. The poem also is not addressing its subject, the woman, directly. The concept of indirectness points to the author's lack of emotion. He is remaining emotionless and indifferent to avoid any confrontation from her. He wants their separation to be as quick and as painless as possible.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Since these two poems deal with completely different aspects of love, they must have been written differently. Their different forms can be analyzed to get the individual interpretation of meaning to be gathered from each. They both come across differently to the reader. One poem is about sexual love and the other poem is about the end of love. This just shows that not all love poems are about falling in love. When a person hears the phrase: "love poem," he naturally thinks that it will be about a love smitten male or female. These two poems just prove that there are many aspects of love that are not necessarily about falling in love. Love poems can also be about separating from our loved one or even about giving in to lust and temptation. From this the reader learns that there are more definitions to a love poem than originally thought.

Ethical Issues In The Federal Government’s Department Of Defense Essay

If there could be anything in the American government that the world has long been admiring, it would always be its military strength. Besides its technology, high product standards, its money, transportation and educational facilities, the world has been looking up at America because of its excellence in the field war and battle. It would seem for the rest of the world that Uncle Sam’s haven offers a smooth-sailing life that people of different colors race and strive to come over. The big question to dig into is this: â€Å"Is America free of corruption and abuse? The answer to the question is a big no. In this paper, we will try to look into the ethical standards of the Federal Government for the purpose of having a benchmark in our evaluation of the ethical deviations inside the organization. Specifically, we will try to evaluate how the Department of Defense go through the process of procurement and will try to pinpoint where the flaw in such process is, resulting to fraud and abuse. This paper has included actual court cases where the Department of Defense was involved. Through these processes, we will be able to prove that no matter how powerful the policies and laws of the Federal Government, the powerful America cannot control its entire people and prevent them from overriding personal interests and public trust. At the end of this paper, the author hopes to have the readers convinced that Federal laws and policies still have flaws and that should be taken into consideration the soonest possible in order for the American nation and the rest of the world restore its fading trust and confidence over the people behind their security. President George Bush during his term, probably ensuring the public of their trust towards the government, issued a separate order that would serve as guideline for strict compliance of all personnel directly serving the public. Executive Order 12731 of October 17, 1990, entitled â€Å"Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees† orders each government employee to avoid, prevent and help detect fraud and adhere to ethical standards at all times and situations. The first section of the EO12731 provides catchy ethical principles which prevent each employee to â€Å"hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty† and engage in financial transactions using non-public government information or allow the improper use of such information to further any private interest† (section 101-b and c). Subsections of the order also require each employee to act will full honesty in their duties and most importantly they are not allowed to use public office for private gain. The Federal Government, based on its laws and policies, has been straightforward and clear as to guiding its public servants to the proper, ethical behavior they should display all the time. So why are there still countless cases and accusations that have been polluting the air of the public servants? What is more frustrating to know is the fact that even in the Department of Defense, many employees and management personnel has been proven to be contributing to such corruption. The fact of unethical behavior existing in the Federal government is not just an outside observation but is also being recognized by those working inside the organization. In a press release issued by the Ethics Resource Center, it turned out that 52% of the Federal employees are aware and are witnesses of at least one type of misbehavior among their colleagues in the previous year. What is more is that only 30% of federal workers surveyed believe their organizations have well-implemented ethics and compliance programs and that only one in 10 said there is a strong ethical culture in their federal workplace (ERC 2008). Almost one quarter of public sector employees identifies their work environments as conducive to misconduct — places where there is strong pressure to compromise standards, where situations invite wrongdoing and/or employees’ personal values conflict with the values espoused at work† (Harned, Patricia cited in Smith, Ralph 2008). In reference to the reports mentioned above, this paper made an impression that there might be something inside the Federal government that attracts employees to disregard ethical considerations and to prefer personal interests over public trust. One thing obvious thing is money. The Federal government, even though have limited financial resources, has probably been the most liquid source of kickbacks for the â€Å"bad apples in the barrel. † It is worth noting that the â€Å"U. S. government is the largest consumer of prime contracts† (Lander, Gerald et. al. 2008). Using this mere information, we can clearly conclude that there is enough money for the bad apples on hand. Moreover, it would be very easy for us to extract the fact that the money is more attracting for those inside the procurement departments. As to federal spending, reports say that procurement contracts have been the fastest-growing part of the discretionary budget. In fact, procurement spending rose 86%, twice as fast as other discretionary spending, which rose 43% between 2000 and 2005. Moreover, such spending composed of 40 cents per dollar of discretionary spending (Ibid). The figures are quite more than attractive and conducive for the bad apples to abuse the trust and authorities vested on them by the public. Despite the fact that trust is held as the most important asset of the government, there is one thing that even the most powerful government cannot control: greed. It is a human element that the procurement agencies of the government intentionally or unintentionally tolerate. The uncontrollable fact of human greed is even recognized by the Department of Defense. As the spokesman of the Pentagon, Dan Howard has noted, †The acquisition system is sound but there is no system on the face of this earth that completely obviates the human factor – greed. And that is why we have policing systems† (The New York Times, June 26, 1988). The trust placed by the public over the Department of Defense continue to fade as more and more cases of fraud files in court have resulted to countless convictions. In Philadelphia alone, the investigation conducted at the Defense Personnel Support Center, resulted in the indictment of 28 individuals and companies on various fraud charges. Such procurement transactions involved textile and apparel industry which have government contracts on uniforms, tents, boots for the armed forces. Here then is the chance for us to ask these questions: What is the purpose of having ethical standards in the federal government? Are these statements of ethical behaviors for the sake of complying with the SEC requirements? Are the ethical standards unsound or the problem of abuse of power and ethical deviance matters of implementation flaws? Referring particularly to the Department of Defense, it is unlikely that these educated people came short of understanding the ethical concepts. In fact, the department’s publication, Armed Forces Comptroller, the author recognizes the fact that their personnel understand the concept of ethics. The author even stressed that â€Å"most of them are required to attend some form of mandatory ethics training† (Benoit, Diana 2006). The Department of Defense has in fact sound which they consider as forming the ethical foundation of the Dept of Defense personnel. For the purpose of evaluation, let us try to look into these then core concepts. The author stressed that these core concepts â€Å"reflect the standards and expectations of military personnel and federal employees throughout the organization† (Ibid). The first of the ethical concepts is honesty which they define as â€Å"being truthful and straightforward, regardless of grade or rank. Honesty is regarded by the department as an ethical concept that goes beyond being trustworthy that it encourages its employees to do not only what is legal but also what is right. Relative to this, abuse of power and betrayal of trust still include acts or attempts of hiding the truth. If the Department of Defense personnel clearly understand this concept, there should have been no reason to remain silent on issues that involves witnessing ethical deviance inside the organization. The ethical concept of honesty goes beyond the issues of actual money laundering. It encompasses keeping accurate records and completing tasks to the extent of one’s capacity and ability. This means that coming to the office late, going out early; taking breaks more than the allowable time are forms of cheating and thus are unethical behaviors. Cheating the taxpayers could also mean using office supplies for personal activities or lavish consumption of such resources. What is frustrating is that this concept is being disregarded by high ranking employees of the department at a considerably higher level of deception as mentioned above. Simple cheating in record keeping and of utilizing government resources for personal use can be detected and be prevented at the lower level of organization. However, it would be a different thing to know that cheating is even more practiced at the higher level of management who are expected to be the police in the department. In fact, the report released by the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, â€Å"the United States recouped more than $1. billion dollars in settlements and judgments pursuing allegations of fraud and in the next fiscal year, the government recovered a record total of more than $3. 1 billion in settlements and judgments from cases involving claims of fraud† (Lander et. al 2008). Closely related to the ethics of honesty is the concept of integrity which the DOD defines as â€Å"doing the right thing the first time and every time. † In an observation by one of the members of the Special Investigations Unit of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in St. Paul, Special Agent Timothy J. O’Malley recognizes the temptations of fraud in their field. O’Malley said â€Å"police officers face greater temptations than they did just a decade or so ago† (Bladow, J. 1994). As an agent, he can pinpoint the fact that the department handles explosives and illegal drug cases which obviously involve a vast sum of money. Taking O’Malley’s exact words, â€Å"a tremendous amount of illicit cash fuels this market. † Here then lies one uncontrollable factor that we can consider. Money is the central thing that enables the government to run. It is money that is the main reason why people oftentimes compromise integrity and principles with dollars. Money enables the government to provide services to public. Employees have to be paid with salaries, supplies have to be bought, buildings have to be constructed, communication and transportation facilities have to be purchased and improved. In fact, America will never be the most powerful nation in the world without its money spent in technology, education and basic government facilities. Moreover, America cannot in anyway be respected or shall we say be feared by other nations if not for its military strength. It is a rare instance that this nation is being challenged by the terrorists during the 911 event. What this paper would like to point out is that even though money is an uncontrollable element in the federal government and particularly in the procurement agency of the department of Defense, transaction processes involving money are very much controllable. In fact, the DOD has sound policies and procedures expressed in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI). In brief, these regulations and guidelines were codified and implemented for procedure compliance purposes especially on procurement transactions undergone by the department. In its Section 201. 304, FAR requires the â€Å"approval of the USD (AT&L) before including in a department/agency or component supplement, or any other contracting regulation document such as a policy letter or clause book, any policy, procedure, clause, or form that has a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency; or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors† (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 2004). Where then lays the procedure flaw- on the approving committee or on those who presents the facts of the procurement contracts? The answer does not solely lies on these precepts. The factors that corrupt integrity in the Department of Defense can be traced in the early stage of the hiring process. â€Å"The applicant selection process represents a critical, though sometimes overlooked, component of police ethics programs† (Bonczek, S. and D. Menzel 1994). The authors suggest that the agency should thoroughly conduct interviews, psychological tests, and extensive background checks (Ibid, p. 4). This would then ensure an applicant’s compatibility with the department’s ethical philosophy. This process can be beneficial in the early identification of â€Å"red flags† in an applicant’s personality before he gets into the department. Even if not all of the factors contributing to the unethical behavior of an employee can be detected at this stage, there are considerable preventive measures that are being done here that can prevent a rotten tomato mingle with the good ones inside the basket. The riskier the world becomes, the higher the standards should the department implement in order to maintain, if not to enhance the integrity of the defenders of the American security. As one observer have noted, it is important that high standards in the hiring process be maintained at all times because of the fact that â€Å"diminished standards or incomplete background checks have resulted in the hiring of armed robbers, burglars, and drug dealers as police officers† (D. Holmquist 1993, p. 38). We have to remember that temptations are everywhere and that is one uncontrollable factor inside the department of defense. Because DOD has got much money to offer especially in the procurement transactions, it clearly caters to a tempting environment. However it cannot really be an excuse neither it will justify one’s act of corruption. Deviance to ethical standards is a clear betrayal of trust and a blot in the name of the person, if he even cares enough for it. A recent study established that fast-talking, outgoing, assertive, and self-confident risk takers represent the best candidates for undercover work. While this may come as no surprise, the study also concluded that these personality traits â€Å"are often the same ones predisposing an officer to corruption and psychological distress† (Bladow, p. 12). This suggests that a good apple in the barrel has always the chance of being badly influenced by others. Strict hiring standards are therefore required to be implemented during the hiring process at all levels. â€Å"Police managers must view their hiring standards as components of managing for ethics† (Wells, S. A. 1993, p. 67). Strict adherence to employee selection is a must although diversity in the law enforcement departments must also be considered in order to foster diverse citizenry. â€Å"Agencies should not pursue the goal of a diversified workforce at the expense of one of law enforcement’s most valued asset- integrity† (Travis, M. A. 1994, p. 1717).

Macbeth Is A Butcher And Lady Macbeth Is A Fiend-like...

In Shakespeare’s tragedy Macbeth, the following statement can be applied, â€Å"Macbeth is a butcher and Lady Macbeth is a fiend-like queen.† This is a true statement as many occurrences involving Macbeth and Lady Macbeth portray them in this way. A butcher can be defined as someone who kills or has people killed needlessly or brutally. The term butcher used in this way describes Macbeth to some extent. During the play, Macbeth is involved in the murder of many people, including King Duncan, Banquo, and Macduff’s wife and children. A fiend can be described as a very wicked or cruel person, or one who causes mischief and annoyance. This can be applied to Lady Macbeth, who had only her own intentions at heart. On many occasions Lady Macbeth†¦show more content†¦The crime of killing Duncan seems especially barbaric as Macbeth killed him in his sleep. After killing Duncan, Macbeth becomes somewhat remorseful and also afraid. Macbeth soon realises that he can not stop at just killing King Duncan. There are now other people that he must eliminate in order to retain his position as King. He realises that the one person who is most likely to threaten his position is Banquo. This is because Banquo was present when the weird sisters gave Macbeth their predictions, and he may suspect that Macbeth is the true murderer of the King. In Act Three, Scene One, Line 48, there is a large speech which shows Macbeth’s fears about Banquo’s knowledge of his dirty crime. After this speech, the three murderers enter, and he assigns them to kill both Banquo and his son Fleance. This act does seem to be butcher-like as Banquo was Macbeth’s best friend and had done nothing wrong. However, it has become a necessity for Macbeth to have Banquo killed. The third example of where Macbeth is a butcher, is when he hires the murderers to kill Macduff’s family. Once again, they have done nothing wrong, but he kills them in order to hurt Macduff. This is a particularly brutal act, to kill the innocent children and their mother. But by this time Macbeth is so full of power, ambition and assurance he will do anything to get what he strives for. Although Macbeth is a butcher several times throughout the play, he can beShow MoreRelatedMacbeth Is a Butcher and Lady Macbeth Is a Fiend-Like Queen1561 Words   |  7 PagesIn Shakespeares tragedy Macbeth, the following statement can be applied, Macbeth is a butcher and Lady Macbeth is a fiend-like queen. This is a true statement as many occurrences involving Macbeth and Lady Macbeth portray them in this way. A butcher can be defined as someone who kills or has people killed needlessly or brutally. The term butcher used in this way describes Macbeth to some extent. During the play, Macbeth is involved in the murder of many people, including King Duncan, Banquo, andRead MoreMacbeth and Lady Macbeth as A Dead Butcher and His Fiend-like Queen in William Shakespeares Macbeth2137 Words   |  9 PagesMacbeth and Lady Macbeth as A Dead Butcher and His Fiend-like Queen in William Shakespeares Macbeth Macbeth is one of Shakespeares four famous tragedies. It was written in 1605-1606, at the peak of Shakespeares career; and was chosen to accolade the new King James I of England, who had been James VI of Scotland. He had a fascination with witchcraft and the supernatural, so the play Macbeth complimented his passion. Shakespeare is famed for his use of the English languageRead MoreAt the end of Macbeth, Malcolm refers to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as this dead butcher...and his fiend-like queen. To what extent do you agree with this judgement?1352 Words   |  6 Pagescrowned King of Scotland describes Lady Macbeth as a fiend-like queen. To a certain extent this judgement is true, yet Lady Macbeth has to actually evoke evil spirits to help prevent her from feeling any compassion or warmth. The evil spirits unsex Lady Macbeth and remove all feminine qualities from her, trading them for evil, proving that deep down there must be some good in her if she has to call for some outside help to aid her with her deeds. Lady Macbeth likes to be seen as ruthless and cruelRead MoreThe Butcher and His Fiend Like Queen in William Shakespeares Macbeth765 Words   |  4 PagesThe Butcher and his Fiend like Queen in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth Introduction At the end of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Malcolm refers to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as: This dead like butcher and his fiend like queen, when he was crowned as new king of Scotland. In Malcolm’s eyes, the Macbeths are just that, cruel murderers who stole away the throne from him and his father. A butcher can be described as someone who kills, or have people killed unnecessarily or brutally. A fiend canRead MoreWilliam Shakespeares Macbeth Essay757 Words   |  4 PagesWilliam Shakespeares Macbeth Macbeth was a â€Å"butcher†, however he became that way as a result of Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth was a fiend-like queen whose evilness declined after the murders. In the end of the play, however, Macbeth’s transformation was complete and he was a butcher. Main Body Topic 1 ================= Macbeth’s transition from good to evil by Lady Macbeth:  · Ambition was his only reason for killing the king – â€Å"I have no spur To prickRead MoreThe Dead Butcher and His Fiend Like Queen859 Words   |  4 PagesEnglish Grade  11 â€Å"The Dead Butcher and his Fiend Like Queen† This dead butcher and his fiend like queen, is the way in which Malcolm describes Macbeth and Lady Macbeth in the last speech of the play. The images portrayed by Macbeth and Lady Macbeth change impressively throughout the play. Therefore, I believe that this quote is not an accurate judgment of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as it was based on one mistake, though a considerable mistake. To start with, I should firstRead MoreThe Dead Butcher and His Fiend-Like Queen1016 Words   |  5 PagesIn extent Malcolm is referring to Macbeth as the â€Å"dead butcher† and to Lady Macbeth as â€Å"his fiend-like queen.† A butcher in the use of this play is a person who kills showing no regret for their actions or reason for the killings. The fiend as Lady Macbeth is to say she is very evil and has no morals, able to bend other’s wills to equal her own giving them a confused air of what they really want. On the other hand to say Macbeth was always a butcher is an unfair evaluation of him, as it doesn’t reflectRead MoreMacbeth and Lady Macbeth, a Dealike Butcher and a Fiend?1844 Words   |  8 PagesThis dead like butcher and his fiend like queen is this a fair description of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth? br brMalcolm made the remark This dead like butcher and his fiend like queen, when he was crowned as the king of Scotland, after Macbeths reign of terr or. It becomes questionable upon the fairness of this justification, whether or not Macbeth was really a butcher and whether or not Lady Macbeth was a fiend. br brIn some ways, Macbeth would have fit the description of being a butcherRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Macbeth 2154 Words   |  9 PagesMacbeth Critical Evaluation â€Å"This dead butcher and his fiend-like queen† Discuss whether or not this is a true summation of Macbeth and his wife. In the play â€Å"Macbeth† by William Shakespeare, the characters of Macbeth and his wife Lady Macbeth could be described as a â€Å"dead butcher and his fiend-like queen†. Through the various actions committed throughout the play and the characteristics they are shown to have, Shakespeare sparked debate on whether or not this quote, which carries many negativeRead More Butcher and His Fiend Like Queen in William Shakespeares Macbeth1034 Words   |  5 PagesButcher and His Fiend Like Queen in William Shakespeares Macbeth I do agree with this judgement of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, but only in some aspects of the play by William Shakespeare. There are many arguments for this judgement; these will be discussed in this essay. In act one scene two Macbeth is portrayed as a heartless, merciless and brutal warrior. We get this impression of Macbeth from the report that is given to King Duncan by the captain; For brave Macbeth