United States Involvement in Organized Conspiracy

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”.

    On September 11, 2001, Islamic extremists stole four airplanes and carried out suicide attacks against the United States. Two of the airplanes were flown into the twin towers in New York City, the third airplane hit the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth airplane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Known as 9/11, the attacks resulted in extensive death and destruction, triggering the United States to create major changes in their security and terrorism protocols. While everyone agrees that what happened on 9/11 was terrible, many believe that the changes in America’s security protocols are not for the best. How 9/11 affected America’s security protocols was for the worse, it caused: privacy invasion for foreign and American civilians in airports, immigration laws increased out of fear, and discrimination and racism towards Arab civilians.

President George W. bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq just months after the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States. There is evidence that shows Bush was after Saddam Hussain from day one of his presidency. Paul O’Neill claims that Bush started constructing arrangements for the invasion of Iraq within days of Bush’s inauguration. Bush denied these claims and discredited O’Neill by declaring he was a dissatisfied employee who was dismissed by the White House and that O’Neill had no reliable comprehension of U.S. foreign policy. The Iraqi National Congress argues that soon after Bush’s inauguration, Bush contacted them to discuss how to remove Hussein from power, which confirms O’Neill’s allegations

September 11th catalyzed a major revival in the American public’s concern for domestic national security, which had dropped off following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The attacks, which were the first on American soil since Pearl Harbor, prompted American leaders to respond with swift and ambitious military action. At this time, the public perceived security of American territory against “terrorism”–an intentionally broad and emotionally charged term– as its chief national interest. Following the attack, President Bush announced the launch of a “global war on terror”, an international effort to combat terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them–prompting him to establish the Department of Homeland Security later that year.

The first step in establishing an Iraqi threat was to demonstrate that Iraq possessed WMD, meaning chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver these weapons. The possession of these weapons would be in direct violation of U.N. resolutions put into effect after the Gulf War and hopefully justify any use of force under international law. Time and time again the Bush administration put forth statements that, “Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving even closer to developing a nuclear weapon.” In February of 2003, one month before the U.S. waged war on Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell brought the administration’s case for war before the United Nations Security Council in an effort to garner U.N. support for an effort to disarm Iraq. By one count, “Powell made twenty-nine claims about Iraqi weapons, programs, behaviors,

Even when faced with reasonable arguments against their courses of action they still went ahead and acted in the same way. Creon took advice from the elders and President Bush took advice from the people looking for WMDs. Colin Powell, in May 2001 informed his President and the nation that “even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful." The war on terror is now justified by the White House administration as having been in response to Saddam Hussein’s human rights record and not down to a reasonable threat of attack and the use of WMDs. The difference between Creon and Bush is that Creon stood alone in his bad decision making, George W Bush took the UK, Australia and Poland along with him. This desire to show power was never more obvious than when, in January 2003 a meeting took place at the White House at which George W Bush and Tony Blair allegedly discussed how they could look for alternative ways to provoke a war after full disclosure about any weapons Iraq held was not forthcoming.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush ran for President for a second time, this time though, something was different. More information linking Bush to the Iran Contra Affair of the Reagan Administration had become public, and the news media was beginning to make the connections. In one of the first articles released regarding his involvement in 1992, the author, Walter Pincus, began to openly criticize Bush for his deception. Pincus, who wrote a lot about Bush and his involvement, explains that “In the almost six years since the scandal surfaced, records and testimony from congressional and legal proceedings reveal that Bush, while vice president, watched Iran-Contra unfold from a front-row seat in the White House.” (Pincus, Walter, 1). Pincus is

Yet another instance whereby the government’s hypocrisy has been displayed is when the Bush Administration declared war on Iraq, about five years ago. Matt Matusek, in an article entitled Purpose of Iraq war murky to Americans, wrote: “The plan was to invade Iraq and capture Saddam Hussein so he couldn't use his weapons of mass destruction on any other nation. The United States also wanted to sever Hussein's ties to Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Then, we were to get our troops back home as soon as possible.” However, five years into the war, it can clearly be seen that the government’s initial goal was to get oil from Iraq, but used Saddam as an excuse to engage in war (Matusek). Today, more and more people, just like Montag, are starting to analyze the government’s actions and take a strong stand against them.

Bush’s ultimatum to the Iraqi dictator and the subsequent war created a big ripple in the smooth flow of international politics. Not only did it cost the U.S. government more than two trillion dollars [Reuters, 2013], it led to the loss to half a million Iraqi civilian lives. [National Geographic, 2013] This

First of all , the paper first way is going to expound about why United States invades Iraq in 2003 for serveral reasons as illustrates: first of all, since United States want to implement the economic sanction to Iraq, they start to invade the Iraq in 2003 and also occupied the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. To be specific, according to research information is clearly shown that due to the Gulf War, the United Nations asked Iraq to stop all chemical and biological weapons because they are worried that it will bring negative influence to the citizen, society and the world. For example, it is being showing by “The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) performed inspections in Iraq to make sure that the conditions of the peace agreement that followed the first Gulf War were carried out.” (Jakobsen& NTNU, n.d.).

One of the main reasons of the war in Iraq was a long lasting Iraq disarmament crisis. In the 1990s Iraq was suspected in producing the mass-destruction weapons, including chemical and nuclear weapons. After the Gulf War in 1990, Iraq and international organizations cooperated with each other, but starting from 1998 the international inspections were no longer allowed in Iraq and Iraq became the opponent of the western countries including the USA. In response, Iraq Liberation Act was signed into law by President Clinton, and the toppling of Hussein’s regime became one of the key priorities for the American foreign policy.

The 2003 Iraq war did not just start out of the blue, nor the 1990/91 gulf war, there already exist an international political crisis between the United States and Iraq (Eid, 2008). This may reiterates Dr. Eid Mahmoud convictions that crisis can be managed not resolved. With regards to US/Iraq crisis, it was mentioned that the Bush and Clinton administration pursued a combination of incomplete military operations and diplomatic accommodation. This was further exacerbated by President George Bush in the wake of 9/11. His administration acknowledged that the United States cannot co-exist peacefully with government that seeks to develop weapons of mass destruction, threaten their neighbors and brutalize their own citizen.

Weapons of mass destruction had been one of the fundamental arguments about the conflict. It was argued through the U.S and the British regimes that Iraq was in possession of weapons that were an extremely big risk to the security of western international locations and the security of the international locations within the area. They argued that intervention was to forcibly disarm a state that was no longer complying with the policies of the global community and which they argued became a massive danger. another goal of the battle of Iraq turned into to increment the security of america by abstracting a regime that posed a threat through contempt for the global network(Clark

For starters, issues of national security should not be taken lightly. As a result, certain authoritative measures should be instituted in place to prevent any future catastrophes from taking place. Pursuing this further, as a definition, national security is the government and its legislatures protecting the state and its citizens against any type of national crises (Holmes, 2016). In addition, one of the best examples of a crisis that lead to an increase in national security was the events that took place, in the United States, on September 11th, 2001. In order to protect the citizens of the United States, sometimes, extremely obdurate decisions will need to be made, some of which can be called unconstitutional by Americans.

Security has been a common topic of controversy since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and even before then it was a constant subject. The image of buildings collapsing and billowing smoke has been engraved into the minds of Americans and will remain there for years to come. Security is an issue that we encounter everyday. Whether it is driving down the freeway or walking into the grocery store; we are cautious of what is going on around us. Men and women across this country are dedicated to enforcing laws; laws that are designed to ensure the security of our communities and our nation.