Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
invading Iraq. The writer argues that an invasion at this time is not necessary or prudent when there are so many bigger threats facing the U.S. The writer discusses why Iraq is not a threat at this time and why an invasion would be inappropriate. There were seven sources used to complete this paper.
For more than a decade the nation of Iraq has been at odds with the U.S. Saddam Hussein, who is the leader of Iraq, has alternately allowed then refused weapons inspections throughout the last decade, even though he had agreed to them following the Desert Storm War of 1991. More recently, the President of the United States has focused attention on a possible invasion of Iraq based on the current war against terrorism that the U.S. launched following the WTC attack of 9-11. President Bush has invested many hours and speeches in an effort to convince the world that an invasion on Iraq is a warranted and logical next step in the effort to stomp out terrorism. While Americans stand strongly behind the hunt for Osman Bin Ladin and members of his Alqeda terrorist group, they are not as one sided when it comes to an invasion of Iraq. Given the recent warnings by government officials about possible pending attacks on the U.S. By Bin Ladin, it makes no sense to take any attention, funds, or manpower away from that cause, to invaded Iraq, which at present poses no threat to the security of this nation.
WHAT THE NATION IS SAYING
Recent polls have indicated that the majority of the U.S. residents still support the war on terrorism when it comes to seeking out Bin Ladin and his terrorists and doing whatever it takes to stop them in their tracks, however the support quickly nosedives when it comes to a possible invasion or attack on the country of Iraq (Wallace, 2002). Recently the American public has made it clear to President Bush that it wants solid reasons for any planned attack before an attack is ordered (Wallace, 2002). In addition the polls show that the public wants any action against Iraq to be approved first by the United States Congress and also to have support through U.S. allies for the invasion. Polls also indicated that only one-third of American citizens will consider supporting an invasion if he chooses to do so without taking it through congress and getting ally support first. Further studies indicate that three out of four Americans believe the president should seek congressional sanctions against Iraq and see if they resolve the problems before ordering anything so drastic as an invasion (Wallace, 2002).
REASONS NOT TO INVADE
There are several reasons that an invasion of Iraq at this time would be inappropriate. One of the most obvious reasons is the fact that Iraq does not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the United States (Afraid, 2002).
One can observe the feelings of Iraq's neighbors to determine how much of a threat it has become. There are six nations surrounding the country of Iraq. They are directly adjacent to the nation yet, they do not seem to fear the nation nor are they making plans to do many thing in a militaristic vein against Iraq (Afraid, 2002). The United States is much further away than the six neighboring nations are. This is one of the evidences that Iraq does not pose an immediate threat to the U.S.(Afraid, 2002).
During the time of Desert Storm the U.S. had no trouble-locating allies to stand by its side during an invasion. Fast-forward to today and the U.S. is struggling to put together a coalition in support of another invasion (Calls, 2002).
An invasion should only occur when there is evidence of immediate danger. The president thus far has failed to prove such a danger exists; in fact the quest to find a reason has turned up more vagueness than ever before (Diamond, 2002).
Regardless of how hard the president works to find reasons to justify an invasion on Iraq, the things that are being uncovered in that quest provide even more evidence that an invasion would be premature at this time. Some of the things that point to not invading include:
The CIA says Iraq is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon but is probably years from succeeding because of the difficulty of producing the necessary fissile material, especially under the international embargo on Iraq. The timetable could shorten if Iraq obtained plutonium or enriched uranium on the international black market (Diamond, 2002)."
The United States promotes freedom worldwide. It will go to battle if needed to protect the rights of nations to conduct themselves in the manner they choose. While the U.S. may not like the idea of Iraq designing nuclear weapons, it is ultimately their right to do so. In addition even if the U.S. wants to stop it from happening there is not enough evidence at this point that warrants an invasion
The CIA says Iraq is reconstituting its ability to develop chemical and biological weapons, though U.S. intelligence is less clear on whether Iraq has these weapons ready to use (Diamond, 2002)."
The fact that the CIA cannot prove that weapons have been developed would make an invasion and attack without merit. The U.S. promotes peace worldwide and to attack without proof of a reason goes against everything that the nation stands for.
THE BIGGEST REASON NOT TO INVADE
Few Americans can deny that what happened on 9-11 was historic. The decision to murder thousands of American civilians was a decision that shocked the world Osman Bin Ladin and his terrorist Alqeda group are an international threat not only to Americans worldwide but to anyone who crosses their mission (U.S., 2002). The FBI continues to update the states on threats that are being picked up through intelligence operations. The U.S. has seen first hand that the threats are not to be taken lightly. Almost every night the news channels broadcast home searches and other methods of locating terrorists. The alert system is being upgraded almost monthly as new information comes through about possible attacks. All of this is coming from the Alqeda terrorist group. Because of the very real threat facing America from this group it is important to devote all energy to seeking and stopping the Alqeda. Bin Ladin is sending open messages to the U.S. that it faces additional attacks. Iraq is maintaining that it does not want to go to war with the U.S. Nor does it want to invite an invasion by threatening the U.S. The only thing the Iraq government has said thus far is that it will retaliate against any nation that takes part in an invasion at this time. On the other hand the Alqada make it clear that its mission is the destruction of the American ideal and any American who supports the ideal. (An invasion on Iraq at this point would divert hundreds of thousands of military troops as well as millions of dollars in funds to the cause. This will take away needed strength from the war on terrorism that is currently underway. The search for Bin Laden and his followers must remain a top priority for the American government so that a future attack can be avoided. The problems the U.S. had with Iraq in the past were hidden in claims of democracy but many experts believed had to do with oil. The Sameer, 2002)
The United States accuses Iraq of producing and possessing weapons of mass destruction. U.S. president George W. Bush has warned Saddam Hussein of unspecified consequences if he does not allow U.N. inspectors into Iraq to check for weapons.
Bush vowed to use "all the tools at our disposal" to change the regime in…[continue]
"Invading Iraq The Writer Argues That An" (2002, November 26) Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/invading-iraq-the-writer-argues-that-an-139817
"Invading Iraq The Writer Argues That An" 26 November 2002. Web.8 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/invading-iraq-the-writer-argues-that-an-139817>
"Invading Iraq The Writer Argues That An", 26 November 2002, Accessed.8 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/invading-iraq-the-writer-argues-that-an-139817
[…] With the U.S. now mired in a Mesopotamian morass because of what is described as a 'unilateralist' foreign policy, the UN's multilateralist approach is gaining unearned prestige and unwarranted credibility" (Grigg, 2006). While the UN might not have masterminded the war, they certainly participated in the events that led up to the invasion, so they did play an important role in arguments for the invasion, and now they
(MACV Dir 381-41) This document is one of the first confidential memorandums associated with the Phoenix Program, which details in 1967 the mostly U.S. involvement in counterinsurgency intelligence and activities and discusses the future training and development of South Vietnam forces to serve the same function, that had been supported by the U.S. In civilian (mostly CIA) and military roles. The document stresses that the U.S. role is to
Strike before being struck is the rallying cry of this form of foreign policy and Kaplan and Kristol would be in complete agreement. Secondly, the alleged harboring of the Al-Quaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for the 9/11 bombings, provided an additional justification which was also in line with the preemptive argument offered by Kaplan and Kristol. The Al-Quaeda were, according to the thinking of these two writers and the
interventionism from the perspective of realism vs. idealism. Realism is defined in relationship to states' national interests whereas idealism is defined in relation to the UN's Responsibility to Protect doctrine -- a doctrine heavily influenced by Western rhetoric over the past decade. By addressing the question of interventionism from this standpoint, by way of a case study of Libya and Syria, a picture of the realistic implications of "humanitarian
George W. Bush made the Bolton appointment while the Senate had been dismissed for holiday and only then. Even conservatives in the U.S. Senate were never warm to the rhetoric of Bolton. He was rude, pushy, and the most anti-United Nations ambassador in the history of American diplomacy. In fact Bolton wanted the U.S. To pull out of the UN at one point. It was difficult to imagine why
Although "peace" appears in the speech as often as "United Nations," I am arguing that "United Nations" is the more primary of the two terms here, having precedence over "peace" since I believe that Bush is asking his listeners to focus on the formal authority of the United Nations as the font from which peace can be coaxed. Focusing on peace as the primary term would (I believe) make the
Culture that Encourages Human Rights Americans were shocked when they learned about the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Or were they? Certainly, the media reported shock and outrage on the part of the public to the unpleasant revelations. But the outrage, if it really existed, has certainly not been a lasting outrage. The White House response to photos of young military personnel sexually assaulting and humiliating prisoners was to