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.
¶ … Soldiers from Iraq
Our soldiers shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.
Though the atrocities of the Hussein regime were well-known, this was never our fight.
After the invasion, many other military units were sent to Iraq -- at least twenty-one non-U.S. units existed in the country in 2007 (Global Security.org, 2009).
presence is no longer necessary.
Many attempts have been made to hand the security issue over to the Iraqis; they can either step up to the plate or not (Shadid, 2009).
Some argue that because we started the invasion, it is our responsibility to see it through.
This argument holds merit, but it has its limits.
After so many years, the Iraqis should be able to handle their own security.
The majority of the population is quite glad to have Saddam's regime gone; our job has to end sometime.
Our effectiveness has diminished greatly, if it ever existed with any strength.
A. This is according to policy makers and soldiers on the ground alike
(Khanna, 2009).
3. It is also argued that regional instability would increase with a withdrawal, but most experts agree that Pakistan and other unoccupied territories pose the real problems (Global Security.org, 2009).
IV. Neither the Iraqi people nor the soldiers think our continued presence there is doing any good.
1. Most Iraqis, even those oppressed by Saddam's regime, do not have a fond view of the United States.
2. Soldiers in Iraq see their lack of direction and their ineffectiveness as detrimental both to the country they are occupying and the international image of the United States (Khanna, 2009).
The most effective arguments are included in the counter-argument paragraph, in the middle of the essay. These can be touched upon in the introduction and conclusion paragraphs as well. Such placement reinforces these ideas, as well as weakening the counter-arguments.
References
Global Security.org. (2009). Accessed 7 April 2009. http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html
Khanna, S. (2009). "U.S. troops praise Iraq withdrawal." Accessed 7 April 2009. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/27/lejuene-soldiers-obama-iraq/
Shadid, a. (2009). "12,000 U.S. troops to leave Iraq." Accessed 7 April 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030800397.html
Iraq's New Government And Social Outcome Of War On April 29, 2005, officials from Iraq's six neighbors, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and regional Egypt, met in Istanbul to welcome the formation of a Iraq's new government and give the emerging democratic process a boost despite regional fears of instability in the country. After nearly three months of haggling over key government posts, Iraq's National Assembly finally approved the country's
Sumer and Akkad were the two city-states that produced the most sophisticated armies of the Bronze Age (Gabriel & Metz, 1991). The Greeks called the area Mesopotamia, meaning "the land between the two rivers," a reference to the Tigris and Euphrates basin; however, in the Bible, the region is referred to as "Shumer," the original Sumerian word for the southern part of Iraq, the site of Sumer with its
Iraq The Honorable John Culberson Old Executive Office Building Washington, D.C. Sir: It seems there is very little we have done in Iraq that is in any way honorable. It is common knowledge, now, that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and therefore precious little excuse for the war. However, it is true, also beyond question, that Saddam Hussein was a vicious and brutal dictator who kept his nation in line by virtue of
"The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf. 2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily. 3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity
" (Campo, PAGE) Such statements remind historians of colonialism, where invaders believed that their society was superior to the culture they were supplanting, while reaping significant financial rewards for doing so. However, the United States has never claimed financial gain. The real criticism of this war is the rush to get there. The United States planned to solve the Iraqi war with force of arms even while the U.N. was
Thus, Iraq has defied the economic embargo applied according to resolution 661 and has not cooperated with the arms inspection imposed by the UN Security Council through Resolution 665 (Leurdijk and Beernink, 2002). Therefore, the state of Kuwait can no longer consider itself protected by the international community and by the United Nations which it trusts greatly. The international law offers the possibility to retaliate in a manner that can