Preemptive War

The Bush administration obtained a substantial amount of advantages solely from calling the 911 attacks a “war”. American citizens believed that they were obligated to trust every decision the government made. Primarily because American citizens believed that it was unpatriotic to disagree with government actions concerning the “war” against a perpetrating country.(Denton 2) Bush and his administration created a larger margin of error for themselves considering the American citizens most likely would not question any government decisions pertaining to the “war”.

War is unpredictable and each case found in American history consists of unique variables, making it nearly impossible for an individual to know precisely what actions will results in the best outcomes. Despite the fact that there may be similarities and comparison between a few cases of war, and that there are lessons learned from past mistakes and triumphs, the United States, or any country, does not have a foolproof guideline on how to handle wars when they appear. To be Commander-in-Chief of the United States military is a massive task in and of itself, without adding all the additional issues the President has upon his plate throughout his presidency. To be a president as war, is always a possibility for those who hold the office, however no president has a true way to prepare himself for what precisely to do when such a time comes. All wars have different factors and varying solutions, all presidents have diverse personalities and methods of handling a situation, thus there is no way to predict how much power a president needs in order to fulfill his main priority under the role of president as commander-in-chief: To take the actions best suited for keeping the American public safe. This debate of how much power a president should be allotted under the crisis of war, is very important, because give the president too little and they may not have enough power to effectively control the situation, but give him too much and the president may exploit their power gained

Bush addressed the US General assembly that he was turning his foreign-policy attention to the regime of Saddam Hussein who had ignored eleven years of UN resolutions meant to force Iraq’s disarmament and end his repression of the Iraqi people, Bush declared that if this continued action will be inevitable, Saddam Hussein has "display its hostility toward America," "support terror," and break its international agreements” (Polk, 2005). Bush declared that if they failed to apply the UN Resolutions against Iraq, He would apply the Resolutions on its own. Bush guaranteed the citizens of America that he was going to "work closely with the coalition to negate terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction"(McArdle, 2011). According to Jacobson and Colon (2008) the President stated, “I will not delay on events while risks increase. I will not stand by as danger draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive

The first responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense. This is what the Bush Strategy supports, requires defeating America 's enemies; which it identifies as a mix of terrorists, tyrants, and partly technology. September 11, 2001 established beyond a doubt that devious networks of individuals can create great chaos, suffering, and terror to not only American shores but to all nations worldwide. Oppressors in some nations have turned their countries into victims. They abuse their own citizens, display no respect for international law, and are determined to obtain weapons of mass destruction, support terrorism around the world, and violate basic human rights. The world of modern technology makes these terrorists and

Fighting a war on terror was outlined in President Bush’s speech, starting with al-Quida. He proclaimed that America would “pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorist” (McNamee, 2001). During his speech, the president unveiled the plans for the United Stated Department of Homeland Security.

Today it is hard to imagine war breaking out on American soil. Though war has most definitely not ceased to exist as a constant worry in our minds, most Americans do not have to fear a stray bomb to drop into the yard. The Civil War, though, had exactly that kind of effect on the American population, both of the Union and the Confederacy. Civilians often found themselves at the mercy of either army, in some cases both, and were forced to choose a side even if they wanted no part in the war. As the films Shenandoah (1965) and Ride with the Devil (1999) portray, for many people the war invaded their lives, and forced them to take matters into their own hands against the evil-doing soldiers as irregular troops waging guerilla warfare. Other times, as the film Pharoah’s Army (1995) depicts, helpless civilian families and their homesteads came under occupation by the opposing side. When neighbors begin warring, nobody could escape the crossfire and people found themselves entangled in the war whether they wanted to take part or not. Primary documents from Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction, edited by Michael Perman, tend to support the films’ points on the depiction of the role of the civilians, such as the anonymous letter from the plain folk protesting the burden of the war from February of 1863.

After September 11, 2001, Bush was in abundant sorrow and he responded before he actually had time to think about the situation. He sensed the stresses going on and affirmed war. While the war took a countless toll on the United States, it appears as if the perceptive for declaring war was to maintain our

September 20, 2001, was the day that President George W. Bush addressed the Nation in a Joint Session of Congress following the terror attacks upon America (also known as 9/11). His speech was given to induce a specific action while at the same time addressing the Nation and Congress of the coming war on terror. President Bush’s speech was not only meant to inform but to persuade the American people to feel comforted in the light of this tragedy and acknowledge that serious efforts are being put forth to resolve the aftershock of the attacks. He aims to persuade the Nation that war is coming and that it’s the best decision for America. He advises the Nation of the coming war, leading with, “Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning.” (American Rhetoric, 2001). He further advises of the impending war with the statements, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated” and “How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.” (American Rhetoric, 2001). President Bush’s purpose and message of the speech was made very clear: We are going to war, and it’s going to be long with several casualties.

If you eat with your fingers does it show you discomfort? Do you feel disgusted? A woman who is very distraught and very wise has an opinion on fingers and she thinks "fingers are filthy" (The Voyage Out 50). Visualize an old, boney, gray skin woman using utensils to eat a fruit. A young, mischievous man who tells the gruesome story of how he got away with murdering a German, with the terrifying graphic detailing story he claimed "with one blow it cut through his neck so deeply that his whole head fell forward and dangled down onto his chest" (Mdisho of Mwanumwezi 39). Envision this a man running for four hours and welcoming himself into another person's home and murdering him with one blow to the head, and then the victims head rolls down

Furthermore, President Obama says, “We can’t ignore what happens beyond our borders. If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American citizens.” Realists’ believe that the “the primary objective of all states (i.e. their governments) is to follow the national interest and states must rely on their own efforts to ensure their own security” (Sens & Stoett, 2014, p.15). The fact that a country like Iran wants to holster nuclear weapons is seen as a threat to America and its citizens. Additionally, the U.S. military reportedly killed Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, without informing or taking consent from Pakistani officials. The president claims to take these actions to protect the U.S. and its citizens but not thinking what dramatic consequences and difficulties are faced in the countries where innocent lives are perished. America gains it’s own protection at the cost of others.

I believe that President Obama will follow the preemptive route in terms of presidency. Todd Eberly mentions how with preemptive presidents “Such presidents are opposed to an existing, but still resilient, regime but they seek to manipulate and aggravate existing “cleavages and factional discontent” within a regime”. With that said, I believe that Obama is on the right path with his presidency, and he will land on the preemptive route because of how they will be willing to change anything wrong within a regime. This benefits us because we the citizens know that Obama will make changes to our society which shouldn’t be here in the first place. Obama will start to manipulate the small things before they become big deals and eventually we will

Which war is the first modern war? Was it the Napolianic wars, the Crimean War or the American Civil War? If you Google it, it would be between the Crimean War and the American Civil War. However each of these wars can be considered the first modern war based on different merits. These wars can share similarities between each other which can create confusion over the question what was the first modern war. Following the French Revolution the idea of the state was changed the boundaries and leaders soon began the rallying cry for people to fight for the nation. “The war of 1792 to 1814/15 thus became - first unilaterally by France and then by the belated and usually hesitant response of France’s victims - the first modern war, the first war

This message of this quote from President Bush is clear, America is not immune from the evils of the world, therefore America will take action to protect both the ideals and people of the free world. To defend against the evils of terrorism, America would go to war with terrorism, which will ultimately lead to the war on terror. President Bush made this stance clear, he stated that “every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. Now moving away from President Bush’s speech on September 20, to focus on the more formal Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was a range of policies that gave the United States the right to protect itself against countries that harbour or give aid to terrorist

With the US being a leader on the global scale militarily and economically, Trump has come into office with a new vision, a somewhat controversial one. This essay will critique Trump’s controversial foreign policy objectives

On the contrary, opposing views claim that the benefits of going to war with Iran compensate for the costs. One argument that adherents of war with Iran present is that a war is crucial because Iran is considered as one of the biggest state supporters of terrorist groups in the world. United States officials profess that Iran backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (State Sponsors, 2011). Moreover, it is often argued that Iran regulates a repressive regime. Admittedly, various people agree that Christianity, as well as other religions, is persecuted in Iran (Should