The 2003 US invasion of Iraq will remain a disputed topic in history. The subject of “should we or shouldn’t we have gone to war” is still a popular discussion because of how controversial the decision was and how we continue to experience the ripple effect as a result to the invasion by the number of people who are still dying in warfare. The decision to for the US to invade Iraq can be of example to how political systems and even nations can fail under the pressures of Groupthink Theory, whether

the American government plans and executes foreign and domestic affairs .This paper will be elaborating on how the Constitution establishes checks and balances that enable three branches to work with one another through the examination of the 2003 Iraq invasion that was executed based on the Carter Doctrine. In order for democracy in the United States to be properly controlled it requires a lot of checks and balances hence the three branches in our government system. The Constitution establishes the

wars; the gulf war and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The gulf war (also referred to as Persian Gulf War or Kuwait War) was a war involving military combat between Iraq and coalition forces led by United States (Hutchinson 19). Dubbed operation desert storm, the gulf war lasted from August 2, 1990 to February 28, 1991. It was one of the deadliest wars of the decade resulting into deaths of over 1,000 Kuwait civilians and 480 coalition forces. Even though the exact number of Iraq fatalities is not known

argument that has been brought up by others who believe the invasion of Iraq was illegal. However, the failed diplomatic policies of the United States are what led to the failed invasion of Iraq. George W. Bush sent an invasion to Iraq with only Congress approving his “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”. 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

inspectors inside Iraq were able to verify the destruction of a large amount of WMD-material, but substantial issues remained unresolved after they left Iraq in 1998 due to current UNSCOM head Richard Butler's belief that U.S. and U.K. military action was imminent. Shortly after the inspectors withdrew, the U.S. and U.K. launched a four-day bombing campaign. In addition to the inspection regimen, the U.S. and U.K (along with France until 1998) engaged in a low-level conflict with Iraq by enforcing northern

In early 2003, the threat of Saddam Hussein and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq captured the attention and concern of the world. One nation decided to illegally act on these unsubstantiated claims, invading the country, violating the UN Charter and breaking several international laws in the process. The penalizations that were subject to the invading country, the United States, were never carried out. The United State’s role and influence over the UN and the Security Council

with Iraq and declared that their goal was to end the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and insisted that Iraq be disarmed of mass destruction weapons. In early 2002, the Bush administration announced that it considered Iraq to be part of an “axis of evil.” Though United Nations arms inspections made increasing progress after their return in November and a large Security Council majority insisted that the inspections continue, United States invaded Iraq in alliance with Britain on March 20, 2003. The

The Effects of Reagan and Bush’s Policies in El Salvador and Iraq United States foreign policy, since the Cold War, has been driven by ideology: good versus evil, capitalism versus communism, and democracy versus totalitarianism. America’s foreign policy objective from 1945 to 1991 was to contain communism, prompting Cold War calculus – the enemy of your enemy is your friend. The United States, following Cold War calculus, allied with unscrupulous leaders opposed to communism, like the Somoza

INTRODUCTION 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

Troops Are Fighting an Unnecessary War In excess of 600 billion dollars has been spent on the war in Iraq since it began in 2003, plus over four thousand U.S. troops have died because of this war, and despite a struggling economy the US government is keeping our troops in Iraq with no end in sight. The war in Iraq is a current military operation that began, without a declaration of war, on March 20, 2003 and is still taking place today in 2009(Rogalski). Americans have been shielded from this war and