War in Iraq: There Was Another Option Essay example

Justification of the War in Iraq Despite contrary belief, the Iraq War can certainly be justified. This war began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S troops under the command of former president, George W. Bush. This invasion can be vindicated for several reasons. The greatest is that Iraq was a severe menace to its own people due to a corrupt and distorted government, spearheaded by the dictator, Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraq was a substantial threat to other nations in the world, including the United States of America because of its previous possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties with terrorist groups. It would be misleading to not mention the economic gains that motivated the American government to occupy Iraq.

Throughout American history wars have played a huge part. From the start of the country to the present wars have played a lagrge part in shaping America into the national power that it is today. Not only is America the most pwerful nation in thwe world but it is also the policeman for the entire world, making and checking up on the world and all the interactions of foreign countries worldwide. Being born in born in the early eighties prohibitied me from experiencing many of the Americas war firsthand. This however changed early in the 1990's.

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

Chemical and biological agents can certainly inflict devastating damage on a country's population. However, what is the likelihood the Saddam Hussein would have used them on the United States or even our allies in the region? Recent history demonstrates that it was not very likely. Up until the first Gulf War, Iraq was an ally, in some sense of the word, of the United States. The US government supported Saddam Hussein in his battle with Iran because we opposed the Shi'a fundamentalists in Tehran. We gave Hussein, through American contractors, many of the chemical agents we

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,

Saddam Hussein had the nearly hopeless task of justifying the invasion. He plead the fact that Kuwait had

The Gulf War was much more than a fight to liberate Kuwait. It was the first non-conventional war; in which new, fairly new, or even experimental weapons were used. The Gulf War displayed much new technology that you will learn lots about in this paper. This paper may sound very technical, but that is what it is about, the new weapon technology vs. the conventional types of weapons used in previous wars. This paper is about the advancement of weapon technology, and how the military changed the tactics used before.

The Iraqi war was highly unjustified, the imposition of the American forces in the Iraqi soil was uncalled for, and it bred a lot of hostility between the Middle East and the United states that resulted in acts of terrorism against the United States. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people were killed including civilians

Within days of Iraqi forces invading Kuwait in 1990, President Bush publicly backed the United Nations’ (UN) stance on the incursion with four national strategic objectives and determined that, ‘if invited, US forces would be deployed to deter further Iraqi attacks, defend Saudi Arabia and enforce UN resolutions.’ From the national strategic objectives, the military end-state is deduced. The military end-state is a conceptual element of operational design which describes the conditions that forces must achieve to attain strategic objectives/ hand over main effort responsibilities. The military end-state does not necessarily indicate the end of a military activities to attain national objectives. While one specific national objective would not

In 2003, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell launched an invasion of the nation of Iraq. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the reasons Iraq posed a threat to international security in a speech he gave at the United Nations. Iraq’s nuclear weapons program concerned the Bush administration. Fearing Iraq might use this program to act aggressively in the region, and wanting to secure oil supplies and a friendly regime, the administration pursued a plan of action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (FLS 2016, 43). A constant secure supply of oil stood as a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex thriving in the United States and a friendly regime in such an oil rich country remained an important objective of President Bush. This directly conflicted with the desire of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to remain in power.

     The war waged on Iraq by the United States has been the cause of heated debate all over the world. Many people have opposed the United States attack on Iraq for many viable reasons. Some of these reasons include that it is not in the best interests for the reputation of the United States with the other nations of the global community, it poses an increased threat to United States homeland security, and it will result in many unjust crimes committed by the United States.

On March 20, 2003, the combined military forces of the United States and Britain crossed the southern border of Iraq and Kuwait with the intent of capitulating the government of Saddam Hussein. Over the course of 21 days, the joint task force moved quickly and decisively to seize major objective cities along the road to Baghdad using aviation, armor, artillery, and infantry. Following the overwhelming success of the primary combat operations of the invasion, stability and support systems proved insufficient as sectarian violence and other criminal activity among the local population of Iraq increased.

The main reason for invading Iraq was because America is concerned about the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons Saddam Hussein might have. Intelligence indicated Saddam was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States. After two years of examining Iraq, the weapon search group failed to find weapon of mass destruction stockpiles or any program to produce them. The Bush administration has expressed disappointment that no weapons or started programs to produce weapons were found, but the White House had been reluctant to call off the search, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small. It is very likely if Iraq was holding any kind of weapons that America is concerned about, they would have used it to keep U.S soldiers out of Iraq.

Wars have been apart of this world almost as long as anything else has. Even in the Bible days there are records of wars. There are many reasons that states choose to go to war. Sometimes it is for the expansion of a nation or state, other times it is for financial gains, and it also could be for security or defense purposes. Whatever the case may be, wars have been apart of human life and will always be. There were no differences when it came to the Persian Gulf War. This war involved the United States, Iraq, and Kuwait. When trying to determine the purpose behind this war I chose to view it from a comparison of both the realist and liberalist views on the war.

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