Later in the war it was revealed that there were never any WMDs. So beyond the decision that was seemingly wrong after a decade of fighting to enter a way with Iraq, the US government lied to prolong the war and continue to waste resources. The reasons for going to war with Iraq were just and reasonable. Terrorists from Iraq attacked national monuments and important US buildings killing many innocent people. It turn, the bush administration put forth a statement to rid the middle east of their WMDs and to impose a “power house” of sorts to keep terrorism out of America.
We should be concerned about Weapons of mass destruction and never let it just float by us. Some Politicians don’t understand the threats of other countries and there weapons of mass destruction that could wipe out a great and big city like San Francisco or New York, New York and it could kill millions of people and a lot more than that. All we have to do is look at places that have experienced this like Hiroshima, Japan or Chernobyl. We don’t want this to happen to us because the toll of the damage would be unbearable to see or hear about. Are country hasn’t experienced something like that before except 9/11.
Noam Chomsky argues in the article ““Looking Back on 9/11: Was there an Alternative” that by rushing into this war, the U.S just fell into bin-Laden’s trap of forcing them to engage in many expensive wars that would drive them to bankruptcy (Chomsky). Whereas as the in the article titled ““A Counterterrorism Strategy for the "Next Wave"”, the Heritage Society disputes that the war and the negative effects of it are justifiable because it is for the greater good, it is to prevent terrorism. They insist on spe... ... middle of paper ... ...r’ Became Everyone’s Islamophobia and the Impact of September 11 on the Political Terrain of South and Southeast Asia.” HUMAN ARCHITECTURE: JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE 1 (2006): 20-50. Piazza, James and James Igoe Walsh. “Physical Integrity Rights and Terrorism.” Terrorism and Human Rights (2010).
It is scary to think that this could be a possibility! The best thing the “Allies” can do is to destroy or steal the enemies “WOMD” (weapons of mass destruction). Chemistry has played an intrigal role in warfare since ancient history until the present and will continue to impact wars in the future. The use of chemical warfare has evolved from mixing chemicals to form compounds useful in the creation of harder and stronger weapons to gaseous chemicals used to kill thousands of individuals. While it’s impossible to know the full extent of how chemicals will be used during war in the future, it’s obvious that the effects will be devastating to the entire world.
As the war developed and the desperation of the Allies increased, Roosevelt realized the need to support the allies (the non-aggressive democracies that he was ideally tied to) or face a group of unreceptive countries in the postwar world. However, his American people had set up a barrier of isolationism between the US and any foreign involvement. Roosevelt understood their view but he said, “[it would take time to] make people realize that war will be a greater danger to us if we close all doors and windows then if we go out in the street and use our influence to curb the riot” (Kissinger 381). As a result, Roosevelt decided to persuade his peo... ... middle of paper ... ...ort the allies without being drawn directly into the war (the US people didn't want to be dragged into a war and so supported FDR's policy). Even though Roosevelt did not want to get directly involved in the war, he knew it would happen sooner or later.
“1,429 innocent citizens including 426 children” were killed in this attack (BBC News). Syria’s stockpiling and transportation of chemical weapons has forced the hand of the United States executive branch. This forced foreign policy of the US is the “red line” that US can not back down from. The United States foreign policy with Syria is effective because Syria is following through with the destruction of its chemical weapons on the UN’s and United States’s timeline. Chemical weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction because of their powerful ability to be used through any distribution device.
Just as the crime becomes the criminal, Saddam becomes his weapons programs; he “is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction" (Bush). Programs that are mostly despicable because they aren’t supposed to have these weapons (according to international agreements, and sometimes early 90’s US mandates, to which, of course, US policy and rhetoric always shows such commitment). The trick is simultaneous with, and analogous to, the more obvious game of peace versus threat. “We are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America” (Bush), except threats from America, naturally. But, the weapon issue focuses on technologies in a way that makes the two rhetorical devices non-homologous and makes weapons more relevant here, because the question is not just of representations but also of instruments.
The large amount of bombs that the U.S dropped on North Vietnam was almost pointless, as the Northern Vietnamese were willing to lose all of those people if it gave them an ultimate victory in the war. To conclude, George Herring and Loren Baritz both had plausible and realistic arguments for what led to the ultimate failure in Vietnam. From over-confidence to lack of understanding, and over confidence, they all played a major role. Without the support of the American people and the amount of money being put into the war, there was a point that we could no longer continue to fight a war that the Northern Vietnamese were destined to win due to our ignorance of their people.
Among the individual Americans, no consensus is available on what they feel needs to be done. Extremists feel that the only way to rectify this situation is to sacrifice all Arab countries. Others hope that there is no need for any more violence, as it can only escalate into even more trouble for targeted countries. For instance, perhaps the solution will be found by bringing Osama bin Ladin and his cult of kamikaze bandits to justice other then executing millions of innocent Arabs with a bomb.
The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq. This proposal met opposition from council members Russia, China, and France. They thought that the U.S. proposal was too aggressive and that the U.S. should not act alone without U.N. approval. For weeks they refused to believe that the only way to make Iraq disarm is through the threat of force and the fear of being wiped out.