Terrorism in America

The Prime Minister was well aware that President Bush was to go to war in any case, yet Blair believed “it would be more damaging to long-term world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so” (Wheatcroft pg.67). This is why British troops went to Iraq without the second United Nation Security Council resolution, which Parliament was promised by Blair. Tony Blair was committed to the Iraq War regardless of defections.

So either we support their words and actions or we are vilified as unpatriotic.” Bush had a dictator attitude when it came to his reasoning for war. He felt he did not have to justify or answer to anyone’s questions for his reasons. Bush let Americans believe some of the conspiracy theories in order to shift the blame away from his administration. Instead of finding the most qualified skilled individual to lead the investigation on the 9/11 attacks, Bush appointed an individual who has been under fire with the government before. Henry Kissinger, a man whose been investigated for his secretive activities and tried for war crimes, was now called to investigate the biggest crime against America.

Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation. The Bush Administration’s plan for war in Iraq, violates International laws, furthermore being ethically wrong (Walton).

That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger," This quote explicitly signifies that George W. Bush along with the neoconservatives lied to make the American public react in a certain way they have planned for their own concealed motives. In my opinion ma... ... middle of paper ... ...a man determined to achieve absolute power over the cost of war tragedies. The film productively works through featuring interviews, displaying news footage and heartbreaking pictures of the after math of the war on Iraq. It specifically proves how the Bush administration provoked the media to convince the people of America to support "war on terror" by creating a non-existent fear.

Long after the Soviet Union was recognized as a failed e... ... middle of paper ... ... arose to Bush's war in Iraq is a good starting place, because citizens raised real questions that were brushed aside. I don't think most Americans are interested in imperial rule, but they were grossly misled by patriotic rhetoric. Now is the time for sober, serious teach-ins that lay out the real history of US power in the world, and that also explain the positive and progressive future that is possible. Once citizens have constructed a clear-eyed, dissenting version of our situation, perhaps politicians can also be liberated from exaggerated fear. The self-imposed destruction that has flowed from Bush's logic cannot be stopped until a new cast of leaders steps forward to guide the country.

According to the article we were asked to read, "How an Elite-Engineered Moral Panic Led to the U.S. War on Iraq," An examination of presidential... ... middle of paper ... ...hing to do with terrorism and in my own opinion is a huge waste of time and resorces - but we won't even get started on that. A second screw-up by the Bush Administration that must be noted in the deliberate ignorance of the Geneva Conventions which regarded the treatment of prisoners of war. The Bush Administration, in fact, is said to have condoned the use of torture. The article we were asked to read, concluded exactly what I have in my additional research. "The Bush administraion's rhetoric concerning Iraw became increasingly punitive and communitarian in tone after 9/11."

Proponents of such an approach, however, often underestimate the costs and risks involved. Instead of mounting a U.S. attack on Iraq as part of the current campaign, the Bush administration should take advantage of its success in Afghanistan to pressure allies and regional players to isolate Saddam's regime and to reinforce deterrence in an unambiguous way. A new "Bush Doctrine" should announce that Baghdad's support for terrorist networks, transfer of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups or individuals who target the United States, or the harboring of such terrorists will be considered an act of war and lead immediately to an American military intervention to overthrow the regime. Targeting Iraq There are many potential targets for a possible post-Afghanistan phase of the war—Abu Sayyaf guerrilla bases in the Philippines, for example, as well as terrorist headquarters and training camps in Somalia, Syria, and Lebanon. But none is more consequential or more prominent in the current policy debate than Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

President George Bush took action and declared war against the Islamic group, claiming it as “war on terror”. President Bush claimed his declaration against the terrorists in line of defense to protect the United States. As citizens of the United States, retaliation seemed to be a reasonable option, but it is not the case. In the perspective of the Islamic group,

This act shows terrorists that democratic governments will act decisively to prevent their evil crimes. The bombings were necessary to send a message that terrorist attacks would not be tolerated and to try to prevent further violence. Conversely, some argue that the U.S. is committing international terrorism themselves. The United States regularly uses violence for political motives, to intimidate and terrify, which is the exact definition of terrorism. The bombings in Afghanistan and Sudan were called anti-terrorist raids, but they were actually acts of terrorism by the U.S. themselves.

This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died in vain. Rather, that the Bush administration took advantage of the vulnerability and solidarity of the American people following the attacks of September 11 to create an environment in which any scrutiny of the justifications given for war was deemed unpatriotic and a threat to our nation’s security. In this way, the war, and Bush’s bid to maintain power through the 2004 election, went forward despite evidence that the reasoning behind going to war was, at best, misleading. The Case for War: The case for war put forward by the Bush administration rested on the establishment of Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States’ national security (see Table 1), which could only be lessened by attacking Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. In outlining the Iraqi threat, the Bush administration brought together two incidents—the September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda and U.N. efforts to disarm Iraq following the Gulf War—which in reality had nothing to do with one another.