The Bush Administration’s plan for war in Iraq, violates International laws, furthermore being ethically wrong (Walton). Despite of all the warnings of war, President George W. Bush still tries to convince the United States that war is somehow justified, with his persuasive lies. Although they struggle to justify such an action towards Iraq, war is no and never will be justified. Punishment for such a decision will be the result of loss of allies and the appalling violation of the United States’ historical principle, “never make such an action towards a country that has not harmed America nor America’s depended on allies” (Dudley 28). The consequences, by far out-weigh the positive affects of war.
The fact is that the United States must live with an increasing number of nations that have acquired weapons of mass des... ... middle of paper ... ...tegy promulgated by President Bush in September 2002 does just the opposite. It prescribes a global security strategy based on the false belief that the best and only way to achieve U.S. security is by forcibly creating a better and safer world in America's image. A better approach would be a less interventionist foreign policy. It is too late to stop al Qaeda from targeting America and Americans. The United States must do everything in its power to dismantle the al Qaeda terrorist network worldwide, but the United States must also avoid needlessly making new terrorist enemies or fuelling the flames of virulent anti-American hatred.
We do not need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility toward these countries makes it especially difficult for Washington to enlist them against al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed. There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights.
The Iraq war has been a very sensitive and divisive issue in today's society. Although we can not ignore the cloud around this administration when it comes to potential incentives that going to war presented, (such as oil for profits and retaliation to Saddam Hussein for the Gulf War and treatment of President Bush Sr.), I will look beyond these potential motives to explain why the U.S. involvement in the Iraq War was unjust simply because it doesn't fall into any of the four functions of force authored by Robert J. Art. The United States ignored the U.N. guidelines for peace, as well as its public protest against the war, to strike Iraq with an unprovoked attack. A war fought on the premise that this country had ties to Osama Bin Laden, was harboring terrorist, and had nuclear ambitions.
The Iraq War, our government’s invasion dubbed “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” had finally arrived after declaring war on March 19, 2003. The U.S.-British coalition to invade Iraq and remove Hussein’s dictatorship has been both a beneficial and damaging political effort. A war that began because of Hussein’s unwillingness to participate in weapons inspections became a messy situation that would last over a decade. President George W. Bush announced his trademark “War on terror” and, as a result, invaded Iraq on the grounds that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction which threatened world security. Prime Minister Tony Blair concured with Bush and believed that the world would be safer when Iraq disarmed itself.
War With Iraq: Is It Worth It? What does the United States have to gain from a war with Iraq? Supporters of a war with Iraq say it will help prevent the risk of an attack by a weapons of mass destruction developed by Iraq. Critics of a military action that say nothing will be gained, and the U.S. just wants to obtain the oil that Iraq controls. They claim that casualties will be too costly for America to afford.
The fourth and final reason is by far the most important. If you look at history you can see that we already attempted to win this type of war and it has been proven unwinnable. The U.S may get minor victories, but we will never completely win over in the Middle East. ISIL is not a joke of an army it is made up of some of Saddam Hussein’s closest generals and to take them lightly would be downright idiotic. As supporters of not going to war say in the article ISIS, “[I]s America cause a backlash among the very people it needs to win over?” (ISIS) They make a very valid argument.
In Bush's speech, he says that "we'll accept no outcome but victory." (Bush) He is referring to the war with Iraq, and according to him, the war will "free its people and defend the world from grave danger." (Bush) He makes the decision to go into war and he seems very confiden... ... middle of paper ... ... Americans that by going to war is the right thing, no matter what. In the end, President George W. Bush speech has shown his arrogance and naivety in going to war. Bush has also demonstrated that his true desire in war is to show off weapons.
It is more important to save the lives of innocent people than to have control of the world’s largest oil supply. This is why a war with Iraq would be for all the wrong reasons. Works Cited Eland, Ivan. “Top 10 Reasons Not to "Do" Iraq”. Cato Press.
Each group denied the existence over the other and so ensued the struggle over controlling the same territory. Although the Arab-Israeli Wars brought drastic changes to the Arab nations by dispelling the idea of Arab unity, it had the most significant effect on Israel , because it turned Israel into a powerful nation and a force to be reckoned with by the surrounding Arab nations in the Middle East. Before the war of 1967, Israel was a small territory surrounded by members of the Arab League who backed the destroyed country of Palestine. These Arab nations did not recognize Israel as a nation in the Middle East , because they did not believe that Zionism could be used as nationalist movement . They saw the Zionists as Europeans and members of the Western world who were not Arab and did not have attachment to the territory.