Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Iraq War- Why America Should Have Never Gone to War
With human rights violation reaching its peak in Iraq and with pictures of Iraqi prisoners proving that U.S. soldiers are committing worst possible war crimes, every American is facing a dilemma: should we support the government or should we not. Everyone is asking the same question, what is America's point for continuing war in Iraq? Does America need to be in Iraq, should it have launched the military attack in the first, Is America really a champion of democracy or simply another terrorist state looking for ways to terrorize weaker nations? These are the questions that are bothering every thinking soul in the world and especially in America where public opinion is sharply divided on the issue of war. Any person with even the slightest degree of humanity left in him would want America to immediately pull out its troops from Iraq where continued presence of U.S. troops is creating a major human rights situation.
If anything those pictures revealed it was that America is certainly not the symbol of love and peace that it claims to be. America is anything but a saintly country because nowhere do we have seen human rights being violated so blatantly and without a hint of hesitation or remorse as we are now witnessing in Iraq where innocent civilians are being cruelly being used for sick pleasures. Those pictures proved that America shouldn't have been in the war in the first place and even if it considered military attack important, it should have pulled out the minute the war was over and Saddam Hussein was captured. America should never have gone to war with Iraq is my stand on the issue and there are many economic, political, social, moral and ethical reasons to support my position.
Direct cost of war
There was once a time during the pre-war period that our sole concern regarding the war of economic consequences of a military attack. We were indeed worried about the economic losses that the country could suffer because of this war since it was being planned on a grand scale. Our concerns were certainly not unfounded since America is facing serious financial crunch because of the high cost of maintaining troops in Iraq and also due to the rebuilding plan that is being implemented. However since we have been awakened to the real horrors of war and the human cost of this cruel conflict, economic losses have taken a backseat in the minds of Americans. However it is still important to know that America stands to lose both economically and politically with this endless bloodshed in Iraq. For one, it is clear that we have lost the war of winning hearts and minds. No hearts and no minds around the world can seriously accept human rights violations that U.S. troops are guilty of. Secondly, we are also losing financially with cost of war rising and with government asking for extra funds all the time. Do we even realize that all this money is our money, the tax payer's money that is now being spend on what- On killing and torturing innocent Iraqi citizens.
Unlike the first Gulf war, this time America was depending on no other country but itself when it came to bearing the cost of war. United States has been the sole financier of this military conflict, which has only quadrupled the economic problems of the country. Even the preparation stage of war had cost America $100 billion, which is a huge sum of money whichever way we look at the issue. And now after the war is supposedly war, the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq is having a deep negative impact on the economy. The monthly cost of maintaining troops is Iraq was more than $9 billion when calculated a few months ago and must have risen now with military acceleration in some areas. Simply the transportation cost of shifting 250 million troops to Iraq came to $13 billion. And do we know that all this cost was being incurred at a time when America was in deep economic troubles and every major business was suffering from financial problems.
And now that the war is over, we are still in deep economic troubles because of the on going so-called rebuilding initiative in Iraq for which our troops are still posted in that country. It is important to mention here that just a few days back, May12 2004, government sought Congress' approval for extra$25 billion to meet the ever-rising cost of war in Iraq. And what is more troubling is the indication given the government that this figure might be raised in case more funds are needed to maintain troops in Iraq.
JAMES TOEDTMAN (1004) of Newsday reported on May 13: "Congress already has allocated $131.4 billion for the war. The White House submitted a $25 billion supplemental request to Congress last night that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said would cover expenses through next spring. After yesterday's hearing Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said that Republican leaders in the House and Senate have indicated that figure would be raised to $50 billion."
The cost of war has already reached the figure of $152 billion and is likely to touch the $200 billion mark by the end of 2005. Do we know that before the war had been launched, White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey had estimated that the war would cost anywhere between $100 and $200 billion and he had been fired for giving such "huge" figures.
We have been told that America's sole purpose for being in Iraq was protection of the world against biological and chemical weapons. For one, no such weapons were ever displayed. They were never found and recent reports have made it clear that Saddam Hussein was not actually a global threat ever. Secondly, even if WMD was the main concern, then what is America still doing in Iraq even though the war is officially over. Suppose U.S. troops have been posted in Iraq for rebuilding purposes, then what kind of rebuilding has been done so far. American public has been fooled so often and so easily by the politicians and the media that most of us have stopped questioning the motives of our government's various actions. Even when we are certain that the government had lied to us, what we do is nothing. We simply turn our backs to the issue and forget about the whole thing. But we need to understand that our naivete and our non-confrontational stance on issues are only adding to problems for American citizens around the world. The rest of world indeed doesn't consider America a friend or ally even if pretends it does. Everyone knows that America's motives for being in Iraq were grounded in black gold that is available in Iraq.
Siddioi (2003) writes: "The real objectives of the Bush administration appear gaining direct access to 'black gold' rather than saving the world from Iraq's potential chemical or biological weapons. According to the Pew Global Attitudes survey, chaired by Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State, some 70% of French public believe the U.S.'s intentions are largely 'oil-motivated'. Iraq's proven reserves - 115bn barrels - are almost four-times greater than America's 30.4bn barrels. Tariq Aziz, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, bluntly put it: "The aim of U.S. policies is the oil in the Gulf." True, conquering Iraq will present a tremendous gift for U.S. oil majors likes of ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. The country's untapped oil resources are estimated at between 220-300bn barrels and potential output capacity could surge to 6-8m b/d within the medium-term, given substantial foreign capital and technical inputs. The official opposition-Iraqi National Congress-would obviously grant exploration and development rights to U.S. oil giants."
Human Right Violation
If economic cost and selfish motives are not enough to convince us of the brutality of war and of the fact that America's presence in the region is completely unsought, unneeded and unjustified then probably the human rights violation going on in Iraq will help us see hwy America should never have gone to war with this country. Iraq may have been a rich country for some since it has the second largest oil reserves in the world but where social conditions were concerned, Iraq was simply a third world country. The health and sanitation conditions in the country were not up to the mark. Children in Iraq were suffering from poor living condition, unhygienic and unhealthy environment and simply from lack of food and clean drinking water. Under these conditions, no one would want to launch a military attack on such a region and further destroy the living conditions. By attacking Iraq, America has proved that it simply doesn't care about Iraqi people and all the rhetoric about America wanting to save Iraqi people was nothing but a lie. American public was naive enough to blindly accept what the government told them about Saddam Hussein and…[continue]
"War In Iraq" (2004, May 17) Retrieved December 6, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/war-in-iraq-171639
"War In Iraq" 17 May 2004. Web.6 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/war-in-iraq-171639>
"War In Iraq", 17 May 2004, Accessed.6 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/war-in-iraq-171639
War in Iraq: An Application of Conflict Theory The recent war with Iraq has been on the minds of people all across the world since well before it started. Many are worried that the United States will be seen as being too controlling, and that it should let the Iraqi people work out their own problems. Others, who are concerned about the threat of terrorist activity in this country and others,
War in Iraq The top story for May 1, 2005 in the New York Times concerning Iraq was titled, "Iraq Insurgents Continue Wave of Attacks." The Chicago Tribune had no top stories on Iraq for this date and the Washington Post's only story on Iraq concerned Iraq's power grid problem. The LA Times' top story is titled "Iraq to Purge Corrupt Officers." Therefore the two domestic stories concerning Iraq come from
War on Iraq United States declared that its main motive behind launching military attack against Iraq was to destroy Saddam's so-called vicious plans against the humanity. But how can we justify destruction of terrorism with more terrorism, how did American plan to root out terrorism with the help of massive military attacks which resulted in the death of numerous civilians and left Iraq in a deplorable condition? The answer is simple:
The time to go in and dismantle his war machine was now, Bush insisted. But now, nearly four years after the invasion of Iraq, with nearly 3,000 American casualties and over $380 billion having been spent (Sidoti, 2006), less than 40% of Americans support the war. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. No evidence of any nuclear program Hussein was alleged to have launched has been found. And
Iraq War As the end of the year slowly approaches, there is an expected transition of power by the United States and its allies to allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves. The media has tried to convince us that we as a nation have liberated the country of Iraq from one of the most brutal dictators in the world's documented history. Saddam equated to a modern day Adolf Hitler. Saddam
What is the opinion about whether the U.S. should have been there in the Iraq War or not? (America at War) The fact is that, in general, humanitarian intervention in a war, anywhere in the world, is accepted as a necessary thing, and also as an accepted fact of life, wherein the states that can afford to intervene and offer humanitarian help are welcomed with open arms. In this case,
He turns some readers off with his vitriolic attacks. Further, his attacks are is blatant propaganda. Why? Because while Taibbi does mention that the Democrats already crafted legislation more than once - setting timetables for withdrawal and tying those timetables to funding, bills that Bush subsequently vetoed - he uses quotes from unnamed "congressional aides" to solidify his assertion that the Democrats just wanted to "score political points without