The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

The concept of normalisation of wrongdoing is a complex one, particularly when it is assumed that some higher value is at stake when such an action is taken. This paper will analyse two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some assumingly higher value. Notably, the two case studies to be examined are the Vietnam War, and the events surrounding the Iraq War.

 

The Vietnam War - One of the most contentious wars in history, the Vietnam War was fought between North and South Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and involved the United States and other nations as well. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were justified in the name of a higher value, such as national security. For instance, the use of chemical weapons and napalm by the US military was justified in the name of preventing the spread of communism. In addition, the US military used torture and interrogation tactics that were deemed to be inhumane and immoral in the name of attempting to gain information and intelligence. While these actions were widely controversial, they were justified by the US military as necessary in order to protect national security in the face of a perceived communist threat.

 

The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003 to 2011 and was fought between the US-led coalition forces and Iraq. During this war, numerous instances of normalisation of wrongdoing were also justified in the name of a higher value. For instance, the US military and its allies used tactics such as targeted assassinations, torture and indefinite detention in the name of preventing terrorism. These tactics were justified by the US military as essential in order to prevent further acts of terrorism and to protect the US and its allies from potential threats.

 

Analysis - In analysing the two case studies, it is evident that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the pursuit of some higher value. In both cases, the normalisation of wrongdoing was justified in the name of national security and in the name of preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism, can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.

 

Conclusion - This paper has analysed two examples of normalisation of wrongdoing in order to gain a deeper understanding of how such an action is justified in pursuit of some higher value. It is clear that the normalisation of wrongdoing is often justified in the name of some higher value, such as national security or preventing terrorism. As such, it appears that the pursuit of a higher value can be used to justify the normalisation of wrongdoing when it is deemed to be necessary to achieve such goals.