Rhetorical Analysis on Bush's Letter to Hussein

The author of “Why We Must Leave Iraq” focuses on using unfair appeals to emotion: biased language. In the first paragraph of “Why We Must Leave Iraq” the author writes “no amount of Administration spin can hide the ugly reality in Iraq” (3). Biased language is shown here by claiming the

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

resolutions aimed to strength Iraq’s disarmament and end his abuse and domination of the of the Iraqi people, Bush stressed that the compliance of this resolutions were crucial to avoid an armed conflict. “The president of the U.S. declared in his speech that if this continued action will be inevitable, Saddam Hussein has “display its hostility toward America,” “supports terror," and break its international agreements” (Polk, 2005). President Bush was determined that Saddam Hussein and his government would comply with the United Nations resolutions otherwise, He would take care of the matter. Finally when he addressed the American community he reinforced that his administration was going to work with the coalition of the U. N to ensure that Iraq would not produce harmful material and conclude that if some other country support Iraq in the building, manufacturing or financial support would pay the consequences of their actions. 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

Administration officials gave a lot of speeches and interviews trying to persuade Americans that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction scope make an unacceptable threat. In October 2002, the US Congress submitted war against Iraq. Bush expected a similar vote from the UN Security Council. President did so for instrumental reasons—a UN permission would maintain domestic political support and put more tension on Baghdad. However, Bush did not believe, that he really needed the UN’s blessing to go to war. When that blessing didn’t appeared, the United States, with the support of a ‘coalition of the willing’ that was consisted primarily of Britain’s and to a lesser extent Australia’s and Poland’s troops, invaded Iraq in March

The Iraq War was the culmination of a decades long trend of tension between the United States and Iraq. The 2003 invasion which market the formal start of the war was precipitated by the Bush administration’s belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and as a result posed a direct threat not only to the US, but to its sovereign allies as well. Furthermore, the Iraq The motivations, evidence, and legitimacy of the war have come under heavy scrutiny as many of the assumptions held at the beginning of the war proved to be inaccurate or completely false. In addition to this, what should have been a relatively short war was greatly prolonged as a result of an insurgency that came about following the toppling of the Iraqi government.

The containment policy established by George Bush Sr. after the Gulf War is the most viable option for the United States when deciding how to stabilize the Middle East. A political strategy of containment strictly sustains the status quo, and is inexpensive in terms of blood, money, and political capital. Furthering the United States’ containment policy in the context of Iraq will halter the making of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, ensuring the free flow of oil from the Gulf, while preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors. For this reason, a political strategy of containment is comparatively advantageous to the alternative. This essay will begin by examining the effect of no-fly zones on the Iraqi government, moving to discuss weapons inspections, discussing the strategic viability of sanctions and their effect on the Iraqi economy, finally explaining the advantages containment holds over intervention.

The occasion takes place on January 9th 1991 when George Bush, the President of the United States, sends a letter to the President of Iraq Saddam Hussein. The context is that Iraq just invaded Kuwait and violated the UN policies. George Bush creates a peaceful yet stern tone to inform Saddam Hussein that if he does not give up Kuwait and comply with the UN policies, then he will not only lose Kuwait but Iraq and much

As years pass, Americans are becoming increasingly critical of the American invasion of Iraq following the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As a result, many Americans are apprehensive in supporting another American intervention in a Middle Eastern country during the middle of an uprising. For years, politicians have echoed the same sentiment: “I will not create another ‘Iraq’ in the Middle East,” however, when faced with the opportunity to do exactly that, it seems the decision is not so simple. On one hand, a direct intervention would be extremely costly and very might well be unsuccessful entirely. On the other hand, taking a hands-off approach and instead opting to employ diplomacy and encourage American allies to

The United States sought to convey their commitment to toppling Saddam through many avenues. President Bush created severe audience costs for himself. By denouncing Iraq on the world stage and committing to certain demands, Bush effectively tied his hands and backing down would have been politically costly for him (FLS 2016, 115). Bush also used crisis bargaining, defined by Frieden, Lake, and Schultz as threatening the use of force if demands are not met, and coercive diplomacy, defined Frieden, Lake, and Schultz as using threats to influence

President Bush uses facts to help support the claims he has made. According to Bush he claims that, “Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas,” He gives outs information to let people know that Hussein uses his own people and that in certain areas in certain areas of Iraq, he has place his troops there. The civilians lives are put at stake and Bush stated on March 22,2002 Saddam hussein is a man who is willing to gas his own people. This attack happen in mid March 1988, when the Iraqi army was fighting against Iran. Throughout the speech the world allies and out military force keeps showing up “We will meet that threat now with out army, air force, navy, coast guard and marines….” Bush claims that, we have the

Saddam has been threatened and warned, but still avoids weapons regulations. A historian explained, ‘"We're not going to tackle Saddam Hussein, we're going to leave this (Inaudible) dictator in power.’ It's pretty obvious how it would look. It would look that the West was scared of Saddam Hussein, it would appear that Saddam Hussein had faced down the great powers of the world,” (Alternative to War). The Iraqi citizens are being oppressed by Hussein, and they will welcome the United States troopers, as they yearn for a new government.

Saddam, through his own actions has continued to present himself as the aggressor. After the Iran-Iraq War, he turned his attention to his own population. He attacked northern Iraq’s Kurdish population, destroying approximately 2,000 villages and expelling an estimated 150,000 Kurds from their homes, and according to a United Nations special report, tens of thousands of Kurds “disappeared” during these attacks. This pattern of behavior shows that Saddam is in no way not a serial aggressor. Whether it is against his neighbors or his own people, Saddam is willing to use mass

1. As our brave men and women in uniform find themselves embroiled again in a conflict in the Middle East, debate surrounding the timeliness and necessity of this second Gulf conflict has ceased in most professional circles. However, before the current conflict began, controversy raged over when and how to best prosecute this situation. Many argued that the United States should have worked through the United Nations to pursue a resolution that had the consensus of the world behind it. That endeavor, however, was doomed to failure from the start. The United States sought to solve this dilemma using military force. France and Germany desired to diffuse it using anything but force. In order to

The essay will begin with the problem at the grounds of security, including direct security of the vicinity via the procedure to disarm Saddam Hussein’s regime of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, and the goal to sell balance within the region thru the religion in of democracy to engender the peace and the conditions for development and perception that democracy could spread across borders. The agency for the safety of american oil resources can be looked at. As every of those goals are discussed, i'm able to evaluate their successes and screw ups, on the way to then be summarised and put together so that it will decide in which methods the united states was rich in Iraq, and in what methods the us-led struggle didn't meet its goals

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created