United States Involvement in Organized Conspiracy
Was the war in Iraq a means to improve national security or a conspiracy to seek personal satisfaction? On March 19, 2003 a war was waged under public scrutiny, to destroy the Baathist regime headed by the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. This pivotal point in United States history marked the beginning of public concern about political corruption within our government as a means to convey personal satisfaction.
National security became the ground breaking concern in the United States after the tragic events unfolded on September 11, 2001. Many questions were brought to the attention of the public eye, such as why the September 11 attacks weren’t diffused prior to the deaths of innocent Americans. Questions of this nature became centered around Al-Qaeda’s insurgence living in and abroad the United State, as the main culprit in the 9/11 attacks. These attacks on U.S. soil revealed a direct correlation to the failure to report issues, and the U.S. unwillingness to address problems before they escalated. This tragic event brought up many pubic, political, and international concerns to strengthen security in and around our nation in order to prevent future terror groups from causing death and destruction once again. The main emphasis was to “wage war on terror”, a slogan George Bush Jr. incorporated in his quest to eliminate terrorism all across the world. Bush began his pursuit by declaring war with Afghanistan in a mission to kill Osama Ben-Ladien, the leader of Al-Qaeda, and those that were affiliated with Al-Qaeda insurgents. Many years later Bush decides to draw attention to Iraq. Disseminating
The original focus on Iraq was in direct connection to its involvement in ...
... middle of paper ...
... the initial phase of the war. These factors that justified war in Iraq was the refusal to corporate with UN inspectors, and the harsh punishments that the Iraqi government imposed on its citizens. The ignorance that Saddam ruled by was dictated throughout his country during the time he commanded the Iraqi government. In retrospect’s Saddams dictator ship imposed possible future problems with national security.
Although this possibility of future crisis could have happened, I believe other diplomatic diplomacies could have diverted the war from ever happening. Saving millions of people’s lives before the bombing and invasion took place. Interpreting this in logical understanding would have been the best way to deal with Saddam’s ignorant ruling. Concluding that the best way to address this issue of injustice could have been avoided instead of fabricated.
The war in Iraq was declared in March 2003 for many reasons. Some of the reasons are to free Iraq, the oil, and because Saddam Hussein did not allow weapons inspectors search for nuclear weapons. The US wanted to take over Iraq and free its people from the torture they had been enduring for so long. Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction that posed a long-term threat to America. He denied weapons inspectors access to search for nuclear war weapons and this served as a threat to other countries. The aim had been the destruction of the Iraqi society enabling the US and Britain to gain control of Iraq's huge oil reserves.
but instead Iraq had been preparing for this for years, they knew what they were doing and were heavily equipped with weapons. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were trying to take over Kuwait, which was a major oil supplier to the world. If Iraq got Kuwait than Saudi Arabia would be right next to them. So then Iraq would pose an Immediate threat to take over Saudi Arabia, which was also a major oil supplier.
September 11, 2001 marked a tragic day in the history of the United States; a terrorist attack had left the country shaken. It did not take long to determine those who were behind the attack and a call for retribution swept through the nation. Citizens in a wave of patriotism signed up for military service and the United States found resounding international support for their efforts in the war on terror. Little opposition was raised at the removal of the Taliban regime and there was much support for bringing Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaeda to justice. Approval abroad diminished approximately a year and a half later when Afghanistan became a stepping stone to the administration’s larger ambition, the invasion of Iraq. The administration would invent several stories and in some cases remain silent of the truth where would prove positive for the Iraqi invasion. It seems they were willing to say anything to promote the largely unpopular and unnecessary war they were resolved on engaging in.
America had begun to indulge in the unilateral environment afforded to it during the Cold War. As the Soviet Union began to collapse in the 1980s, the United States was on its way to becoming a solo super power. This acquisition of complete power would inevitably lead the country into new problems, including those foreign and domestic. One of the main issues that came around in the 1980s for the Unites States was the Iran-Contra Affair, which involved the Reagan Administration. With the United States readily inserting influence across the globe, the Iran-Contra Affair proved how foreign intervention can lead to scandal and disgrace in the modern world. Along with detrimental scandals, the Iran-Contra Affair showed how America’s imperialistic behavior in South America was beginning to catch up. In order to remain a dominant influence in South America, the United States had no choice but to topple governments that did not align with American ideology. Using guerillas like the Contras insinuates America’s cornerstone of doing what is necessary in order to satisfy foreign interest.
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.
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...
On March 18, 2003 the United States invaded Iraq. (The Washington Post) The War with Iraq is a very divisive issue around the world. Turn on any news show and you will see a daily debate on the pros and cons of going to war. Because of the situations that have occurred between the United States and Iraq, very different views and perceptions have developed. Much debate on the justification of the United States for being in Iraq, let alone overthrowing its “government”, has been presented from both sides – the Hawks and the Doves.
Iran-contra affair is the name of a major United States foreign policy scandal in the 1980's. It involved two secret operations by the executive branch of the government. The operations were (1) the sale of military equipment to Iran, an enemy of the United States; and (2) the provision of military aid to contra rebels in Nicaragua, which Congress had banned. The two operations were connected by the use of profits from the Iranian arms sales to aid the contra rebels.
...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.
Fear begets hate and hate begets violence. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the 1741 New York slave conspiracy trials. Much like the violence in the Salem Witch Trials, a set of natural circumstances coupled with the word of one or two people from a lower order of society caused hysteria and bloodshed. This case is flimsy by modern-day standards and is also very flimsy by the standards of the 1740s.
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
Saddam Hussein was a dictator, who through intimidation and force maintained his grasp on power. These are tactics used by many governments throughout the world, ironically including the Amercian government. Saddam had a history of human rights violations and corruption, although compared to other international leaders his transgressions can be considered moderate. For example, in countries such as Rwanda and Sudan far more extreme measures have been taken by leaders, while the international community did little. The Iraq war is based far more upon oil and power then it is freedom. Seemingly, the Bush Administration and their corporate allies saw an opportunity to control the world’s second largest supply of oil and thus, like any savvy businessman would do, exploited it.
Also, Saddam wanted to stay in power - using weapons of mass destruction would mean a sure end to his power. This calls into question whether or not invading Iraq was justified because the Bush administration should have known that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were effectively contained. Because Iraq is effectively contained, it is no longer an imminent threat to the United States or any other countries. Saddam Hussein has never threatened to attack the United States or to use weapons of mass destruction offensively (Farley 29). Sure, Iraq's surrounding countries such as Kuwait and Iran hate Saddam Hussein, but they are not afraid of him.
The war in Iraq is over now. Looking back on a huge controversy makes one side seem clearly more “correct” than the other. Yet in the beginning there were two sides to the controversy about the war in Iraq. There was the terror brought upon by the 9/11 attacks, people that the government wished to punish or kill like Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden, and a country which was in “need” of US help both politically and financially. At the time of the Terrorist attacks, people were afraid of what else the terrorists were planning or could do and so George Bush sent troops in to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In hindsight the war on Iraq was a bad idea. The situation was handled poorly, far too much money was spent, and there were far too many casualties to say that the war was a good idea to enter into. To continue war efforts and gain support, lies were spread about finding actual weapons. 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 Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition. The US wanted to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime and bring democracy. To addition to that, US and its allies believed that Iraq had secret stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons, hence Iraq was a threat to the world (Axford 2010). In March 2003, US air bombed Baghdad and Saddam escaped Iraq. The invasion disarmed the government of Saddam Hussein. President Bush in March 2003 gave a premature speech, that tyrant of Iraq has fallen and US has freed its people. President Bush flew into Iraq to show the world that the war is over, even though nothing was accomplished (Kirk et al. 2014). Iraq was facing 13 years of scantions, therefore regime diverted its resources to flexible networks of patronage that kept it in power (Dodge 2007, 88). Iraq faced widespread of lawlessness and after the violent regime changed US could not control the situation. Iraqi civilians were looting, attacking ministries building and this resulted into a series of event (Kirk et al. 2014) . From a military perspective the regime was taken down, but they made no commitment to rebuild or secure the country.