Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
S. forces. Another is that a preemptive strike in Iraq was illegal as per international law. The financial cost of the war, the American casualties, and the terrorist violence in the post-Saddam are also quoted as evidence that the U.S. War in Iraq was a mistake. (Scheer)
While it is true that no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq, it must be remembered that WMDs were not the only reason for the Iraq War. The most compelling reason was the need to remove Saddam, a savage tyrant who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own Iraqi people who opposed him, as evident in the more than 300,000 bodies found in mass graves after the war. As for the legality of the war, the Iraqi regime was in violation of a number of Security Council resolutions and continued to defy them; hence military action against the regime in the circumstances cannot be termed illegal. Regarding the high cost of the war, although even one human life lost is one too many, we must remember that brave nations sometimes have to endure great sacrifices in order to prevent greater calamities. When compared with the American soldiers killed in other wars such as the World War II (405,000), World War I (116,000) and the
... In view of the latest developments in Iraq and the Middle East region, therefore, more and more people including some former opponents of the war in Iraq are beginning to realize that President Bush was right in invading Iraq after all.
Works Cited
Krauthammer, Charles. "Three Cheers for the Bush doctrine." Time Magazine. Mar. 07, 2005. May 4, 2005. http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1035052,00.html
Scheer, Christopher. "Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq." AlterNet. June 27, 2003. Mar. 07, 2005. http://www.alternet.org/story/16274
Schorr, Daniel. "The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right." Christian Science Monitor. March 4, 2005. May 4, 2005. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html
This was an improvement even over the 1st Gulf War, generally considered as "very successful" but in which most oil fields in Kuwait were set on fire triggering an ecological disaster.
Similar democratic elections were also held in Afghanistan under the U.S. installed regime -- also the first time in its entire history.
Dismissed at the time as a "neo-con pipe dream" by the critics
Argument
Works Cited
Krauthammer, Charles. "Three Cheers for the Bush doctrine." Time Magazine. Mar. 07, 2005. May 4, 2005. http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1035052,00.html
Scheer, Christopher. "Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq." AlterNet. June 27, 2003. Mar. 07, 2005. http://www.alternet.org/story/16274
Schorr, Daniel. "The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right." Christian Science Monitor. March 4, 2005. May 4, 2005. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html
This was an improvement even over the 1st Gulf War, generally considered as "very successful" but in which most oil fields in Kuwait were set on fire triggering an ecological disaster.
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.
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
American invasion of Iraq: the official position meted out by the Bush administration on the one hand, and the position most scholars and foreign policy analysts support on the other. The latter position is that invading Iraq served distinct foreign policy goals that were not being honestly articulated but which nevertheless underwrote official decisions. Within these two broad camps are a number of more specific explanations as to why
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
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