The United Sates Invasion

support of the overthrow of the Taliban Regime. The attacks on the Taliban were to justify the attacks on 9/11. “... the impact of 9/11 contributed to strong American public support for the invasion.” (ANDERSON 1). President George W. Bush had declared war on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 after the country had declined to release Osama Bin Laden from hiding after the attacks.

The Bush administration commenced this war on terror because the Al-Qaeda terrorist group from Afghanistan had declared that they were accountable for the attacks (Green). In order to attempt to keep America safe, the U.S. strived to take apart these terrorists. Removing the Taliban government that was shielding the Al- Qaeda terrorist group was another reason the “war on terror” began (Green). Another war that started was between Iraq and the United States. After 9/11, the U.S. conquered Iraq on March 2003 and defeated Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s government (Bodden 44).

After the terrorist attack of 9/11 President George W. Bush wanted to declare war on Iraq, and chose not to wait on the approval of Congress. He made this decision not because they were a direct threat the the moment, but because they could be a possible threat a year or five from that point in time. Bush’s claims for declaring war are not reasonable by any means. Claiming that they could be a threat down the road years from now, is not a practical reason to declare war on another country, you do not have the be the one to strike first to stop a potential threat to your country. These “emergency” actions by Bush were illegal and should have caused him to be impeached.

At the Systemic level of Analysis the Us had a great deal of interest in the Iraqi oil being that it was one of the Second largest home to oil reserves. US was in a state of oil crisis so this would have beent he perfect time to try and invade Iraq and gain control of their

The attacks carried out on September 11, 2001 were handled directly by Al-Qaeda. Being a terrorist group, Al-Qaeda does not directly associate with any particular country therefore Bush had no right to attack a country as a whole based solely off the actions of a particular group. “For the president, it was not necessary that there were manifest signs of that threat. After 9/11, such signs could no longer be expected” (DeCosse). This suggests that the reason Bush decided to go to war was solely based on one incident that happened, even though there were no threats being made. Although terrorist attacks such as 9/11 did occur, nothing like that would happen again, and be a very slim chance of any threat reaching the United States. There was no real motive other other than using an incident that happened in the past. It was beneficial to the Bush administration to portray the entire country of Iraq as a country of terrorists, when in reality is was only a small group that committed the crime. “International terrorism, the events of September 11, and Saddam Hussein, if not addressed, would weaken the international power of the United States” (Ortu). This emphasizes the fact that Bush used the event of 9/11 as a reason to go to war. He felt as if it were not addressed, terrorism would continue even though there was no reason at that point in time to go to would continue to attack the United States. Only stating the events of 9/11,

The war in Iraq began in March of 2003. During this war personnel of the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency committed a chain of human rights violations. This was against prisoners in the Abu Ghraib Prison, which was in Iraq. These violations included torture, sodomy, sexual and physical abuse, rape, and murder. The abuse captured public attention and was widespread. The incidents received widespread condemnation both within the United States and abroad, because of the photographs and publication of the abuse by the news in April of 2004. Meanwhile, the soldiers received support from some conservative media within the United States.

The United Nations fights for humanitarian issues through the use of peaceful dialogue between countries and leaders. The UN's powers of authorising peacekeeping, sanctions and force when absolutely necessary is given to it by the UN charter, an international treaty. They are limited by the fact that they cannot make their resolutions and policies the law, however the important conversations they start and ideas that are shared are influential upon the many powerful leaders who choose to listen.

The Charter of the United Nations also known as the “UN Charter” was signed June 26th 1941, as a way to force the Idea of human rights. The Document defines principles for the understanding of: living standards, economic dilemmas, health and universal problems, and gave freedom to race, sex, language, and religion. Early on, in The Charter of the United Nations it States, “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace” (Chapter 1, Article 1). Even though the UN Charter was signed and passed there were many mixed feelings about it. So, the real question, were the principles of the Charter of

In Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, it requires that all members "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. Most importantly, member states agree to a broad prohibition against use of force: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.'' These words

August 6, 2001, Bush was reported that receive a brief informing him of Bin Laden’s intent to strike the US, but this warning was overlooked and allowed the US to vulnerable to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Once al Qaeda was deemed as responsible for the attack, the US implemented a strategy to strike back with Operation Enduring Freedom. Eventually the US implemented Operation Iraqi Freedom and fought terrorism in both countries simultaneously.

Americans know it as the Mexican War, but the people of Mexico know it by a different name. The U.S. Invasion. The borders of America after the Louisiana Purchase was finalized, went from what is now Oregon's eastern border all the way to the very northern tip of Texas and into Louisiana. But President Polk still wanted more land, so in 1836 when Texas won its independence from Mexico they scrambled to get the new republic annexed into the U.S. This caused problems with Mexico because when Texas signed the treaty with the U.S they, the Americans, were convinced the border was the Rio Grande. The Mexicans, on the other hand, thought it was the Nueces River. But the war became unavoidable once armed American soldiers crossed into Mexico. For

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

The Reason for Going to War Since the beginning of the war on Iraq, over 8243 civilians, 11000 Iraqi soldiers and 642 Coalition soldiers have died. There has not been one day since a US soldier was killed and since the beginning of the occupation, 39750 bombs have been dropped and $117 billion dollars have been spent. And no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

A second level of analysis is examining what kind of policy makers we had at that time. Most were neoconservatives. Neoconservatives saw American purposes served by spreading democracy to “rogue states” such as Iraq. The White House’s intention at the time was to transform Iraq into a democratic model for all of the Middle East. Is this wrong? Should the United States enter another country and enforce what they believe would be best for them. The answer is yes if this nation is being destructive in a global civilization. (Viotti & Kauppi,

The invasion was slow. At first there were just a few, no more than 7. The government had kept it all quiet of course. Nobody blames them, not that there are many to blame them anyhow. It was all they could do not to cause panic, they were likely just as afraid as the rest of us. These monsters, these invaders from another world. There were rumors for decades, everyone wrote them off as crazy conspiracy nuts. Stories of aliens coming, taking people, leaving. They said these aliens did horrible things, wiped out millions of people over arguments, poisoned themselves over the span of years for the fun of it, watched others of their race beat each other near to death for entertainment. It all seemed so silly nobody thought much of it. That was