Analysis of Howard Zinns Argument in his Article Dying for the Governm

Analysis of Howard Zinns Argument in his Article Dying for the semipolitical relation In June of 2003, Howard Zinns Dying for the Government was published in The liberal newspaper. He discusses the governments claim to army victory in Iraq, and he gestates that many innocent people pack died for an unjust ready in that war. His claim is that soldiers died for their government, not their country. An important part of his careen is his backchat of democracy, which he hypothesises is what our country is supposed to be based on. He withal brings up roughly history of U.S. wars and quotes Mark Twains story ab come out the invasion of the Phillipines by the United States. Even though some of his assertions lack evidence, Zinn uses authority and structure very well to unclutter his leaning effective. Some of Zinns assertions are a bit sketchy in his essay because there is no evidence that proves them true. One that really stands out is when he writes, they died for Bus h and Cheney and Rumsfeld. And yes, they died for the greed of the oil cartels, for the expansion of the American empire, for the political ambitions of the President. They died to cover up the theft of the nations wealth to pay for the machines of death (159). His argument may seem true to many, but he does not propose us with any evidence that these statements are accurate. He does not say where he got this instruction, so it may be hard for some to believe this, unless they share the same opinions as him. Another statement he makes is that we have not been given in the American media (we would need to read the outside(prenominal) press) a full picture of the human suffering caused by our bombard (159). This is a very strong assertion, but he does not severalize us if he... ...ifth of whom grow up in poverty? (161). Questions like these make his argument very strong, and they are purposely added towards the end to make the contributor consider their own thoughts about them after already having been given information on the topic. It is obvious that he is against the expansion of U.S. power, and he is very rabid in his writing about it. Authority and structure make Zinns argument very effective, even though some of his assertions do not have much evidence. Throughout the essay, he makes it very clear how he feels about the government and war. He feels soldiers are dying for their government so the U.S. can gain more power. Towards the end of the essay, he writes, instead of being feared for our military prowess, we should want to be respected for our dedication to human rights (161). I could not have said it better myself.