The Iraqi People Rhetorical Analysis

Shannon talks again how the norms of one state are driven by their leaders and the theory that they try to avoid breaking norms unless there is reason to do so, as they value their social status. I think this concept comes into play for the movie as well and is perhaps how we see George Clooney’s character make his decision to help the Iraqi people while in their village. Of course, Shannon is talking about state leaders in her theory, yet I feel for the purpose of this movie and paper Clooney can be talked about as a leader, as he continues to make the critical decisions for the men throughout the film. As mentioned, this is best exemplified when the men are in the Iraqi village and the fall into conflict with Iraqi soldiers. The men had their gold and the soldiers even helped put it in the truck for them, but as they are about to leave a women gets shot in the head, by Iraqi command, in front of her family and the …show more content…
Shannon concludes her paper by talking about what she found from her research, most notably stating that norms do matter, even if they are broken. More specially stating that Norms, even if violated often, are important for directing the normal currents of international relations. I agree with Shannon’s theory, as it is better to have norms than to not have them at all, even if people don’t always fallow them. If we lived in a world were their were just none the act of war might be even more dangerous, if one can even imagine that. Although I agree with her conclusion, I don’t think it applies to this movie. In Three Kings everything seems to matter but norms. We see norms of war in certain situations, such as when Mark Walhberg’s character does not kill the man who is unarmed after torturing him. But we see more actions driven by personal interest, moral obligations and norms being