Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reasons for the iran iraq war
Iraq war cause
What was the reason for iraq's war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reasons for the iran iraq war
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. This turned out to be fabricated and questioned the legality of the first strike that commenced the Iraq War in 2003.
First we have the function of defense according to Art. Its main purposes are to ward off an attack and to minimize damages to one if attacked. Iraq being a failing state was in no position to mount any type of attack against the United States. They posed no threat to the security of the United States. The failure to get the approval of the UN supports this position. "In deed, the U.S. led coalition (which, in council deliberations included Spain) went to great efforts to draft one final resolution that could muster the necessary number of votes to give their planned invasion the UN stamp of approval. Having failed, U.S. & British diplomats argued that the authority to take military actions could be found in previous U.N. resolutions."(274) In going around the U.N., The United States used the tactics of preemptive self-defens...
... middle of paper ...
...mply to Germany belief about others intent without reference to their actual intent?"(83) The United States’ phantom justification of insisting on the war makes them accountable for starting the war when it was clear that Iraq posed no threat. They are ultimately responsible for lives lost, monies lost in fighting the war, and a country left in ruins. The war on terror is real and extremely important to our security, but it shouldn’t be used to as propaganda to fulfill special interests. This is a war of individuals, and not of a state, and a war that could not be fought by means of conventional tactics. The Bush administration successfully morphed Afghanistan terrorist Muslims into Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Bibliography
1. Russett, Bruce, Harvey Starr, and David Kinsella. Politics: the Menu for Choice, 8th ed. New York: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006.
In the Iraq War, the decision for the United States government to declare war was not what was the ideas of the founding fathers. Before the war even started, the President declared war himself, without the consent of Congress. An in the Constitution itself, it writes that Congress has the power, “to declare War,” (Art. I, sec. VIII). Then, as if to have a slap on the other side of the face, Congress, “refused to insist on enforcement of Article I, Section 8 of
Fairlie, Henry. The Parties: Republicans and Democrats in This Century. New York: The New Republic Magazine, 1978.
No matter how well intentioned the invasion of Iraq may have been, it was an act of violence and deception that has left many American men dead for no clear reason.
Dye, Thomas R., L. Tucker Gibson, Jr., and Clay Robison. Politics in America. Ninth ed. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Longman, 2011. 337. Print.
Terrorist attacks are a major crisis for a state, the attacks can’t only damage the state physically but they can also have an impact on the state’s economy. Nevertheless, state leaders must act accordingly and do their best to defend and protect their state. After experiencing the attack on the American embassies the President of the United States proposed a plan to have military intervention in both Iraq and Syria. The plan requires both Congressional and public approval along with the requirements brought by Just War Theory. As Crawford noted on “Just War Theory and the US Counterterror War,” no matter how bad war might be, it is necessary for there to be rules that can help prevent more harm. Thankfully, the proposed plan to go to war against ISIS can be justified on these moral grounds.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
Garner, R., Ferdinand, P., & Lawson, S. (2009). Introduction to politics. Oxford, England: Oxford UP.
On September 11, 2001, our country was hit with enormous devastation, just after eight o’clock a.m. the first of the twin towers was struck by a suicide pilot, the second was struck slightly later. The towers fell just after ten o’clock a.m., devastating the entire country, and ruining the lives of many. A plane also hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and another in rural Pennsylvania causing just as much grief. The U.S. is still in mourning, but standing tall, more Americans showed their American pride in the following months than ever before. In the months to come the only thing that was on the minds of millions was: Should we go to war? War is necessary for the survival of our country. Going to war with Iraq is a fight against terrorism. Many people believed that going to war with Iraq is unjust. Some believe that there are other ways in looking at the situation.
By attacking Iraq, the United States has shown that they are no better than the villain Saddam Hussein. The assaults on Iraq were criminal and wicked acts while they were also unjust and unnecessary.
Beck, Paul Allen and Hershey, Marjorie Randon. Party Politics in America. 9th Ed. Longman, New York, NY. 2001.
South University Online. (2013). POL2076: American Government: Week 4: People and Politics—Interest Groups. Retrieved from http://myeclassonline.com
... hand, the principle is still very useful and is referred to in global political and social debate. It is noted that Richard Falk, critic of western wars argues that the just war theory ‘is a vital source of modern international law governing the use of force and it focuses attention on the causes, means and ends of war’ (Shaw, 2005, p.133). It can be acknowledged, that the morality of war still remains urgently central to political argument around the world. In recent years, the Just war theory has seen to respond to the main challenges surrounding the establishment of war in Iraq in 2003. It can be assessed the war in Iraq has distorted into a stimulating theory positioning the existence of Weapons of mass destruction.Therefore, this dissertation will elaborate on the theories that are challenged by Iraq war in relation to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Romance, Joseph. Political Science 6 class lectures. Drew University, Summer 2004.
Dye, Thomas R. , L. Tucker Gibson Jr., and Clay Robinson. Politics In America. Brief Texas Edition ed. New Jersey: Pearson, 2005.
Larry Johnston (2008) Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic State, Third Edition, Chapters 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9.