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.
This is misleading because axis implies an alignment of some sort. ... ... middle of paper ... ...aghdad: “I made it quite plain…that it was obvious from the briefings that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and had only battlefield weapons…I could not have been more blunt” (Watt-1). After British troops went to Iraq, Cook resigned promptly afterward. Blair went into Iraq with the intention to disarm not to dethrone because of the imminent threat to British interests. 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).
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. The logic went ... ... middle of paper ... ...ushed forth their own war by misleading the American public into believing an Iraqi threat was imminent and by taking advantage of the willingness of the American people to find strength in their American identity following the attacks of September 11. In such a climate, the path to war was not laid down by reason or necessity, but by the hawkish vision of those in power, who by coupling fear and nationalistic sentiments with a questionable body of intelligence, convinced the majority of the American people and their elected representatives that the time for war was now and the cause of war was just. In the face of such self-serving leadership, it is up to the American people to take back their democracy. The first step is to rekindle the spirit behind Thomas Paine’s reflection, “It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”
Bush feared that Iraq could be a major threat to the US, thus put forward a case for imminent intervention. Due to Iraq’s previous history of attaining WMD during the Gulf war, there were questions upon whether Iraq is a grave threat to global economy. It is noted that the UN set out resolutions to provide peaceful conditions that Iraq had to comply with. However, Iraq failed to comply with resolution 678 and 687, due to the recent knowledge of attainment of WMD. It is argued by Peaceright activist Rabinder (2002) Singh QC and Janet Kentridge (2002) that ‘Iraq’s alleged failure to comply with all or any of the existing 29 UN security Council resolutions would not justify the use of force’ (Shiner.P, AND Williams.
It could be the self-defence of America against 9/11, or the suspicion of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, or the desire of American oil companies wanting to control Iraq’s rich oil reserves. Regardless, the necessary undertaking to act in a preventive matter was denied by Bush’s ignorant decision to “liberate” Iraq. Through closer observation, George W. Bush’s actions in the Iraq War are marked as unjustified based on his illogical motives for the war, the disastrous mark the Iraq War left on the U.S. economy, and the immoral ethics applied in the war. Bush’s self-defence on his motives for the Iraq War stirred logical complication ever since the war commenced on March 17, 2003. Bush originally claimed that the link between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda’s involvement in the September 11 attacks and Iraq’s “murderous tyrant” Saddam Hussein posed serious threats to the U.S (“Iraq War”).
It engages the opponent in cost-and-benefits analysis by creating the fear of consequences. To deter, one needs to credibly convince his opponent the aggression i... ... middle of paper ... ...ther choices except for conquering Kuwait’s oil to resolve his financial and military problems. Hussein was not rational to realize what forces array at him. He underestimated U.S. will and capability to get involve. On the other hand, the threat from the United States was not credible because it was too ambiguous and it did not show the United States’ commitment to protect Kuwait.
Liberal Democrats' Opinion on Iraqi War Firstly I must and cannot stress enough to you how strongly the Liberal Democrats opposed the Government's decision to go to war in Iraq. However by invading Iraq the government imposed on the UK a moral obligation to the Iraqi people to work towards a secure, stable and democratic Iraq. But our obligation cannot be open-ended. The UK Government should produce an exit strategy, including a plan for the phased withdrawal of UK troops by the end of the year. The War The war in Iraq is the biggest mistake that this Government has made.
However, he did not have the authorization he needed from the United Nations, therefore, the invasion of Iraq was illegal. It is true that Saddam Hussein was killing his own people, but the United States should not have invaded without solid proof. George W. Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but none were ever found. (The Invasion of Iraq is Illegal) In 1963, the CIA of the United States placed Hussein's Ba’ath Party in power. We were complicit in the birth of this regime through an unconstitutional act of foreign aggression.
So far, no evidence has been presented implicating Iraq in the 9-11 attacks therefore if Bush declares war then it would be a war crime because it's broken the law. Now let me start with the main reasons why I think the United States is going to have to go to war, why it is necessary and why it would be in some senses positive to go to war. And the first is the plight of the Iraqi people, which for so long, in the United States, and the international community in general, has also been almost beside the point. You know, throughout the 1990's, when we talked about Iraq, so rarely did we talk about what was best for the Iraqi people, what they wanted? and what could be done.
There were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, not enough technology was developed in Iraq to target long range enemies; America was definitely not being aimed at. Nothing was being planned from the Iraqi side.” (globalpolicy.org) About the WMD excuse, George W. Bush lied that the Iraqi were a threat to its neighboring countries [Kuwait and Iran] and to the world peace due to the believe that weapon of mass destruct... ... middle of paper ... ...ading Iraq have been told to the outside world yet. If powerful countries with solid military force like the United States is able to take-over a country for personal benefits then where will the world end up one day? George W. Bush was definitely in hype or hysteria when he made the decision for invading Iraq, this hype led United States into the war. History should always be used for granted; history is just like a lesson that is thought at any school, if you pay attention to it and learn from it, astray will not be your path.