The Pros And Cons Of A War With Iraq

The Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, took place in 2003 and dragged on for almost nine years, until the withdrawal of US troops in December 2011. The invasion was justified by the US using the new National Security Strategy that was proposed by the Bush administration. One of the key features of the National Security strategy was the justification that the US could preemptively strike targets nations that it deemed a threat to the security of the US. In order to justify the invasion of Iraq, the governmental leaders in the US claimed that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaeda and other terror groups, as well as using Saddam’s use of chemical weapons as legitimization for the war. Once the war began on March 20, 2003, the original

A total war is a conflict which involves bringing together resources; this includes both industrial and military resources aiming at having an output that the enemy will not overcome at all (Castellano, 2016). The biggest difference that exists between a total war and a normal war is that there is really zero difference between those fighting in the same war and the civilians in this period; all these people are considered an enemy.

In conclusion, President George Bush’s letter shows how united the world is against Iraq’s aggression. Twenty-eight countries would give military aid and one hundred governments would agree with the United States position. Iraq has no allies in their takeover of Kuwait. Bush’s threats of military action challenge Saddam Hussein’s arrogance and sense of infallibility. Warnings of the destruction of Iraq’s military and loss of life would be on the hands of Hussein himself. The United States would not be responsible for Iraq’s losses. Again, the primary audience for this letter is Hussein himself, because in a dictatorship such as Iraq, the people themselves are deprived of such information. Brute

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

On the other hand, the Bush Administration claims the whole aim of the operation in Iraq was not to only disarm Iraq, but to stop the dangerous spread of weapons of mass destruction through the military force (Schell). Although the support of many U.S.A. citizens is weak, President Bush insists “We muchs prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world (Schell). President Bush also mentions how we will “not permit” (Schell) Iraq to

As an outcome of that decision Saddam was toppled. The west celebrates, and with them the Iraqi Shiites, which took power over overnight. The Sunni majority became an oppressed and persecuted group in their own country, and

This paper will look at and discuss the presidency’s actions involving Iraq from Reagan to Obama. Each and every president during this time has used different strategies and formats to get their agenda across, to not only convince the public, but the international community as well. We will show how Iraq has gone from an ally to overthrowing the government, to the ensuing turmoil that this created for everyone involved, from ours and their citizenship, governing bodies, and other world leaders. With over 35 years of intervention, we will determine if there has been a consensus of actions among our presidents, and see if there is a cohesive US strategy and long term goals that have been reached for all our effort and actions to all of this.

The leading question on our mind is “Should the United States have gone to war with Iraq”? A majority of individuals believe that President George W. Bush was not being the person everyone was reliant on in 2001 when he confirmed war on Iraq. After war was declared, the world transformed immensely, even more than what people thought it would. It is clear that going to war with Iraq was a bad choice and only made the situation worse.

The fourth mission was to collect more information on Iraqis weapons of mass destruction activity, as with the objective of collecting information on other terrorist groups. The U.S military recovered documents on its illegal weapon programs. The fifth objective was too lock Iraq’s oil production and fields. Many people thought was the first objective because U.S military forces secured the filed within early hours of the war. The U.S had made announcement on April 14th, that all of Iraqis major oil sources were under control. There was very little damage on the resources. One of the last goals that were important to the United States was too give Iraq humanitarian relief and end sanctions. Even while the war was still in the process the U.S forces started to help the

Have you ever wondered why there are so many terrorist attacks in the United States? Why did the United States spends so much money on the military? This all happens due to a reason that the United States keep interfering into others countries’ problems, but most of the time nothing come out of it. Sometimes, the United States even make the problem become even worse. Just like the war in Iraq. The decisions made by the Presidents cause the problem getting worse day by day. Helping people out is a good thing, however, we should think about if that person need help or not. Which out the intervene of the United States, Iraq will not be in a situation like today. The United States will be less in debt and more money to fund other programs. There are more negative effects than positive effects when the United States meddles into others countries’ problems, so the United States should just ignore and stop worrying about those countries.

The Containment Policy established by George W. Bush after the Gulf War is the most viable option for the United States. The Containment Policy strictly sustains the status quo, and is inexpensive in terms of blood, money, and political capital.The Containment Policy will halter the making of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and will ensure free oil flow 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 discussing the strategic viability of sanctions and their effect on the Iraqi economy, finally explaining the importance of oil in Iraq 's economy.

The election was a fraud, it was very unorganized, unprofessional, and not well put together. As I said about the campaigns; they were not very well thought through and very unprofessional. In my opinion, Trump will be a good president because the United States needed a change. Hillary is a politician, that is usually who gets in for president, but the U.S. doesn't need a politician America need a change; a businessman. Yes trump will deport the illegal immigrants and maybe build a ¨wall¨ but that could be a good thing for the U.S.. Seeing that it is pretty easy to get legalized and become a U.S.. citizen this really shouldn't be a problem, if an immigrant does not meet the requirements to become a U.S. citizen then there is probably a good

And, as you know, for years I've been saying, 'Don't go into Iraq.' They went into Iraq. They destabilized the Middle East. It was a big mistake. Okay, now we're there. And you have ISIS. And I said this was going to happen. I said, 'Iran will take over Iraq,' which is happening as sure as you're sitting there. And ISIS is taking over a lot of the oil and certain areas of Iraq. And I said you take away their wealth, that you go and knock the heck out of the oil, take back the oil. We take over the oil, which we should have done in the first place…” (Should the United States Send Ground

As of recent, there is an ongoing debate over the response of the Obama administration related to the events occurring in Syria and the potential violation by the Syrian government of customary international law and relevant treaties and conventions in the use of chemical weapons against its own people. The conflict itself has history which is required to be thoroughly examined before conclusions can be placed and actions are to be carried out. The Syrian Civil War has not only affected the lives of Syria’s citizens but has becoming a pressing issue in direct international relations between countries like Russia and the United States. Obama’s administration has their own response to the crisis at hand and believes that a military strike is a fully legal move to make given the situation present at hand. According to the evidence, it would seem possible that a violation has not occurred and that the threat by Obama’s administration to use force in the Syrian crisis stands on illegitimate grounds because the proceedings are done by Syrian government on their own grounds. However the atrocious actions committed by the Assad regime could in fact provide legality to military intervention by the United States. Finally, the focus will be to determine whether chemical weapons are in fact the sole factor for international intervention.

After the gulf wars, a ceasefire was negotiated between the United Nations coalition and Iraq. During the ceasefire, the United Nations became aware that Iraq had started a biological warfare program in the 1980s, as well as a chemical warfare program. Upon further investigation, they found that these programs had not continued after the war. As a result, the United States main focus moving forward was the removal of the Saddam regime, their official foreign policy for years to come focused on this goal. With the suspicions that Saddam Hussein had the abilities to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration going as far as to claim he already had them, the United States and other countries began devising a plan of action. These countries strongly believed that Iraq was a treat to its neighbors and the rest of the world, and that the only solution was to invade Iraq. The United States invading Iraq in 2003 was a turning point in the reason why relationship between Iraq and the United States is the way it is today.