Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Bush justified to invade Iraq
Incontrovertibly, one can assert that Iraq had not been invaded for social or political reforms by the Bush and Blair Administration. Their objective had not been to liberate or free Iraq, but instead to occupy it and abuse the massive quantities of oil it holds. If truth be told, the aspiration to conquer Iraq and have power over the oil fields has not been a latest development.
Historic tendencies have revealed that all colonial states and super powers, for example America, Britain, Russia, France etc., have worked as a team and sometimes challenged each other depending on the state-of-affairs to achieve control over the oil wealth within Iraq. Abbas Alnasrawi (2001) writes, "It is a historical fact that the home governments of multinational oil corporations (U.S., UK, France) have all played significant roles in enabling their companies to acquire oil concessions, to penetrate markets and to deal with the governments of oil producing countries (Abbas Alnasrawi, 2001)."
Also, the associations between the Bush Administration and their U.S.-based oil Multi-National Corporations is noteworthy, in view of the fact that, these businesses have been enormously upbeat and have overpowering authority in the making of foreign policy. As Abbas Alnasrawi (2001) asserts that this connection between the oil companies and the Bush Administration, "is abundant and goes way back to the early part of the last century (Abbas Alnasrawi, 2001)." Furthermore, Dr. Ferruh Demirmen asserts, "For a good part of the last century, interests of national governments were closely linked with the interests of oil companies, so much so that oil companies were de facto extensions of foreign-office establishments of the governments. The latter actively lobbied on behalf of the oil companies owned by their respective nationals. The oil companies, in return, would guarantee oil supply to respective governments -- preferably at a substantial discount (Dr. Ferruh Demirmen, 2003)."
The statement of the problem
Many political writers and experts believe that the war had been instigated on Iraq for the reason that it had been very important for the American and Britain oil corporations to acquire control of the second largest oil reserves in the entire world. The neo-conservative lobby in command in United States in conjunction with their British equivalents had no plans and objectives of establishing democracy or reinstating international human rights standards in Iraq.
The menace of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Saddam's association with the September 11 attackers in United States and the monstrous human rights breaches executed under Saddam's authoritarianism had been nothing but a conspiracy. Neither the Bush Administration in American nor the Blair Administration in Britain had made any strategies to deal with and respond to the threats that have become apparent after the warfare has finished. If truth be told, many political scholars and writers reveal that they had intended and designed plans to have a long-drawn-out stay in Iraq from the very beginning.
The purpose of the essay
The purpose of this study is to assess the rights and wrongs of the justification given by the Bush Administration to attack Iraq. Furthermore, the paper also briefly reveals the significance and importance of the oil reserves of Iraq in the war waged on Iraq and how the United States and British oil corporations have lobbied with administrations of George Bush and Tony Blair to acquire contracts valued billions of dollars. The paper also reveals the political aspects of this war and highlights on the impact that democracy and the latest elections in Iraq will have on the Middle East and the Arab World.
Review of literature
George Bush's administration asserted that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had strong connections and that they both had been responsible for the September 11 attacks on the American soil. While making his case against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, they also maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed a huge stockpile of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) and that Americans faced imminent threat form the Iraqi dictator. Furthermore, they had no backup plans for the American troops as they thought that the war will be won without any difficulty. However, things have turned out to be completely different from the common notion of the Bush and Blair administration. As David and Christy (2004) note, "As the 9/11 Commission recently reported, there was "no credible evidence" of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Similarly, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. With U.S. casualties mounting in an election year, the White House is grasping at straws to avoid being held accountable for its dishonesty (David and Christy, 2004)."
These views have been expressed by many politicians, scholars, writers and journalists. Neither did Saddam possess weapons of mass destruction, nor was Saddam a threat to America and its allies. The evidence against Iraq and Saddam had been manufactured by the intelligence agencies and the Bush Administration. Dana (2004), writes, "In the only comprehensive assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction released to the public before the war, the CIA exaggerated and distorted the evidence it had given Congress just days earlier, according to the Senate intelligence committee's report released last week. The White Paper, released Oct. 4, 2002, and based on a classified assessment given to Congress, was the public's only look at the intelligence that policymakers used to decide whether Iraq posed enough of a threat to warrant immediate military action (Dana, 2004)."
The attack on Iraq had been planned by the Bush administration long before the September 11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks were used as a ploy by the Bush administration to carry out their vicious designs against the Iraqi people to gain control over oil. As David and Christy write, "But such an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country required a public rationale. And so the Bush administration struck fear into the hearts of Americans about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD, starting with nuclear arms. In his first major address on the "Iraqi threat" in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, 'Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program' (David and Christy, 2004)."
The evidence given by the Bush Administration on the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had also been manufactured and manipulated by the Bush Administration. Neither did Saddam Hussein nor did any of his cabinet members had any contact with Al Qaeda before or after the 9/11 attacks. Glen and Raymond (2004) write, "A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none (Glen and Raymond, 2004)."
Another distortion of truth by the Bush and Blair Administration to wage war against Iraq had been that Saddam Hussein had been in search of uranium from Africa for a recreated nuclear weapons program. Glen and Raymond (2004) expose this falsification as well; "The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in West Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has 'separate intelligence'. The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now 'under review' (Glen and Raymond, 2004)."
The Bush Administration emphasized that Saddam Hussein had been looking for finding ways and means to import aluminum tubes so that he can carry forward his plans to build weapons of mass destruction and use them against the American interests. Glen and Raymond (2004) reveal, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges (Glen and Raymond, 2004)."
Another validation given by the Bush administration had been that Saddam Hussein possessed huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that these weapons could be used by the dictator to attack American interests as he also had launch capabilities. Glen and Raymond (2004) expose this lie as well, they write, "Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the U.S. And used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had…[continue]
"Was Bush Justified To Invade Iraq " (2005, April 20) Retrieved December 9, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/was-bush-justified-to-invade-iraq-64836
"Was Bush Justified To Invade Iraq " 20 April 2005. Web.9 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/was-bush-justified-to-invade-iraq-64836>
"Was Bush Justified To Invade Iraq ", 20 April 2005, Accessed.9 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/was-bush-justified-to-invade-iraq-64836
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.
911 as Justification to Invade Iraq The war in Iraq may or may not have been justified for humanitarian or ideological reasons, depending on one's perspective. American leaders who favored war with Iraq used the frightened public mood, after 9/11, to maneuver opinion toward favoring the war, supposedly for America's safety. According to "Clarke's Take on Terror" In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser
U.S. INVADED IRAQ IN 2003 Why U.S. Invade Iraq 2003 invasion of Iraq has a number of forceful effects that relate to the influence of the 9/11 occurrence in the country. The then U.S. president who happened to have been President Bush pushed for the U.S. invasion of Iraq amidst the actions that Saddam had done to the U.S. In most avenues of performance, it is clear that the U.S. attack
U.S. Invasion of Iraq- Reasons US Invasion of Iraq: Reasons The Republic of Iraq is located in South West Asia. Baghdad is its capital and Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Persian Gulf, Iran and Turkey are its neighboring countries. More than 95% of the population in Iraq is Muslim. The members of Shiites sect are the main inhabitants of the country (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2009). Saddam Hussein Takriti came in
Bush and Iraq According to the original reasoning behind Bush's war on Iraq, Saddam Hussein's regime posed a terrorist threat to the free world, however (subsequent to evidence emerging in the press that this threat was exaggerated, if not fabricated) in more recent statements the Bush administration has strongly implied that the war was justified not on the basis of freeing the world of terrorists but because Hussein was a brutal
Iraq War-Justification So much has already been said about Iraq War and the grave error that United States made by invading Iraq that it seems absurd to even suggest that this war was justified. But we must not ignore both sides of the coin. We have already discussed the anti-war arguments and have come to believe that serious judgment errors were made when United States, Britain and Australia agreed to launch
6). At home, though, the media can often be co-opted by being made to feel that public opinion would be against it if it reported something other than the prevailing public sentiment. After't he 9-11 attacks, the public wanted the perpetrators and their leaders punished, so the war in Afghanistan had the support of the public. By extension, the idea of the war on terror also had support, though