The Iraq war, also known as the second Gulf War, is a five-year, ongoing military campaign which started on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S. troops. One of the most controversial events in the history of the western world, the war has caused an unimaginable number of deaths, and spending of ridiculous amounts of money. The reason for invasion war Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, which eventually was disproved by weapons inspectors. Many people question George W. Bush’s decision to engage a war in Iraq, but there might be greater reason why the decision was made. The ideas of George W. Bush might have been sculpted by one of the greatest works of all time, "The Prince." "The Prince," written by Niccolo Machiavelli in 1513, is a political treatise addressed to the Medici family of Florentine. "The Prince" was written to analyze and explain the acquisition, perpetuation, and use of political power in the west. Machiavelli’s theories in the work describe methods that an aspiring prince could possibly use to acquire power, or an existing prince could use to keep power. Though this work was written in 1513 and published in 1532, its context can be applied to foreign policy in today’s world. The principles suggested by Machiavelli provide insight into the issues that arose with the war on Iraq and issues involved with occupation and transition to a new government. One principle outlined by Machiavelli that can be applied to George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is the importance to act quickly. Discussing political disorders, Machiavelli stated “when trouble is sensed well in advance it can easily be remedied; if you wait for it to show itself, any medicine will be too late because the disease will have become incurable” (pg.10). He then goes on to state “Political disorders can be quickly healed if they are seen well in advance (and only a prudent ruler has such foresight); when, for lack of diagnosis, they are allowed to grow in such a way that everyone can recognize them, remedies are too late” (pg. 10). In my interpretation, Machiavelli’s argument would support the decision of President Bush to attack Iraq, with or without strong evidence of the threat of weapons of mass destruction to national security.
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
Saddam Hussein’s main purpose of sending troops to take over Kuwait was to take control of their oil fields, which Hussein believed would be an easy task; however, he failed to understand that the United States and United Nations were keeping a very close watch on the Iraqi’s actions. Hussein also had other motives, such as freeing himself from the debt he was drowning in from the Iran-Iraq War just two years earlier. He set the pretense for war with Kuwait by defining their refusal to give land to Iraq as an act of military belligerence. President Bush ordered the United States to respond just five days after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. If the United States had not taken action, Hussein would have possibly continued to invade other oil producing countries and take control of the United States main sources of oil as well as threaten a number of innocent people’s lives.
In September 1980, a very destructive war with Iran was started by Saddam Hussein. This was a result of an invasion in Iran. This invasion spurred an eight year war. Saddam used c...
This I’ll admit was a very interesting book that looked at what could have really caused the Iraq war and whether we really had to go to war. The book talks about the flaws with the reasons that Bush proposed for going to war with Iraq and why we haven’t had a fuller victory yet. The book basically goes into details about the four observations that arise from examining certain aspects of the war and afterwards. In the next few pages I’ll be summarizing the book then stating my analysis and opinions about ideas presented in the book.
...The lack of diplomatic leadership was also a great factor; he describes Iraq as it lacked political and social legitimacy. Fitzgerald’s research on the invasion of Kuwait article summarizes their history and provides a clear overview of the history of the relationships between Iraq and Kuwait (Hassan 28). This helps the people to get a clear picture on the kind of problems that faced the Middle Eastern countries. The article provides a better knowledge with worthwhile information on the occurrences that destabilized the Middle Eastern countries. It mentions the reign of Saddam Hussein who was one of the most powerful dictators that did not bow down to Western influences (Musallam 67). As a result of his tough skin it led to a war that could have been avoided. In conclusion, war creates danger for any economy and while peace provides for steady economic growth.
Gauss, Christian. Introduction. The Prince. By Niccolo Machiavelli. Trans. Luigi Ricci, revised by E.R.P. Vincent. New York: Signet Classic, 1999:7-32
In this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.
Throughout Machiavelli’s novel, we encounter several specific instances in which the author gives explicit advice to would be or currently serving princes and rulers of nations. Much of this advice can be easily translated to world leaders in the present day, including the President of the United States. However, some of the advice that Machiavelli gives out are things that often times don’t apply to current world leaders. As I explore the novel, I can’t help but imagine several real life politicians using some of the methods of ruling discussed by Machiavelli, with the true of definition of Machiavellianism being “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct.”
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
Machiavelli's writings dealt with many issues that had not been attacked in his time, and utilized his distinct brand of political philosophy to try and change the politics and government that shaped his era. The Prince, regarded as his most controversial and successful work, spelled out a method of amelioration; whether positive or negative, virtuous or severe, a prince was to uphold the strength of a nation and a government. The next few pages will take a closer look at the life that has followed Niccolo Machiavelli, the use of historical allusions and the explicitness used in The Prince.
March 19th, 2003 marked the official start to the US invasion of Iraq. Prior to this, there had been a lot of tension and conflict building up in the Middle East. Just months prior, President George W. Bush said in his state of the union address, coined a term for three countries that were seen as potentially dangerous and threaten the peace of the world. He called them the Axis of Evil, and it consisted of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, with Iraq being the major topic of discussion. He said that Saddam Hussein was carrying weapons of mass destruction and further developing chemical and nuclear weapons. He claimed that they had already used on civilians, “leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children”. He painted a grues...
Would you rather be feared or loved in a position of authority? According to Machiavelli it is "much safer to be feared than to be loved’. Machiavelli was an Italian historian amongst many other things during the late 15th century. He wrote about political topics which have made their way into current times and are still relatable topics and pieces of advice. The pieces Machiavelli wrote can be considered as very influential works. In specific the topics brought up in the “Qualities of the Prince” can still to this day be translated and interpreted and applied to life today. I agree with Machiavelli that as a person in an authoritative position is more likely to be successful when feared rather than an over accommodating leader
I think Machiavelli’s advice can be construed as evil if it is taken in the wrong context, but I believe most of his advice was to be taken as general statements and not to be taken in the literal sense. While I agree in the example you gave of doing one thing in front of someone then doing something completely different behind there back is immoral in some cases, I believe Machiavelli meant that as a general statement in which sometimes one must tell someone one thing and do something different to protect them.
It is commonly believed by both lay people and political philosophers alike that an authoritative figure is good and just so long as he or she acts in accordance with various virtues. If the actions of a ruler are tailored toward the common good of the people rather than himself, then that ruler is worthy of occupying the status of authority. By acting in accordance with social and ethical norms, the ruler is deemed worthy of respect and authority. Niccolò Machiavelli challenges our moral intuitions about moral authority in his work, the Prince, by ruthlessly defending the actions made by the state in an effort to preserve power. In particular, all actions made by the state are done in order to preserve its power, and preserving the state’s power preservers its people. In doing so, whatever actions the state exercises are justified with this end goal in mind. Although such reasoning may seem radical, it is practice more readily that most people are inclined to believe. Machiavelli's moral philosophy is deeply embedded in the present day justice administration. Due to this, Machiavelli’s political thought can serve as a reference for illustrating how today’s administrators can benefit from following the examples of other great leaders, such as on matters of global warming.
The book The Prince was a book of advice to politicians regarding how gain power and keep that power. The title The Prince is not about someone who has inherited land and a decedent to a king. In Machiavelli’s perspective a prince was a man of the citizens....