War can be defined as a struggle of an individual or group to uphold their beliefs or current position. This struggle becomes a problem to society when it involves violence, infringement of human rights, discrimination or innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, these are the same elements that are used to provide justifications for wars. Whether the purpose given to society is true or merely a petty excuse used by respective leaders to salvage what is left of their reputation, one thing is certain, the cycle of violence will live on unless some trust can be forged among leaders.
             For many years the United Nations has tried to form alliances and peace agreements among nations for the "greater good" but the organization is slowly beginning to have no effect. It seems that magnitude fades with multitude. The peace treaties are violated only a few days after they have been enforced. Usually, the arguments of the nations involved are based on the existence of bias within the treaty. Ironically, the treaty itself becomes an accessory to war since through its violation, discrimination is fought and rights are upheld.
             With power comes great responsibility. Throughout history, this has been the view of many onlookers. It has also been expressed that the more one has, the more one wants. It must be understood that these two perspectives don't exist separately but rather are two sides of the same coin. A prospective leader is inspired by power since it is with this power he can do good or otherwise. Originally, when the coin is flipped, the leader usually sees the responsibility associated with power. But as any child knows, the coin won't always read heads. Eventually the tables turn, the coin displays tails and the judgment of a once stable leader becomes clouded by sudden wealth. As mentioned before a war is a struggle to uphold a current position but it is obvious that a leader cannot use the maintenance and expansion of ...