The Reason for Going to War
Since the beginning of the war on Iraq, over 8243 civilians, 11000
Iraqi soldiers and 642 Coalition soldiers have died. There has not
been one day since a US soldier was killed and since the beginning of
the occupation, 39750 bombs have been dropped and $117 billion dollars
have been spent.
And no weapons of mass destruction have been found.
This was precisely the reason that President George Bush wanted to go
to war over. In his speech to the nation informing them of his
decision, he said, “The people of the United States and our friends
and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that
threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
Saddam Hussein was made President of Iraq in 1979 and he has been
known to have these alleged “weapons of mass destruction” for over a
decade, without using them aggressively against another nation. So why
wait until now to try and stop him? Bush stated that, “coalition
forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to
undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war”. However, Saddam
Hussein had the “ability” to wage war for a long period of time, so
why was Bush so keen to stop him now?
The main reason that Bush gave was that he wanted to rid Iraq of their
weapons of mass destruction. However, nine other nations all over the
world such as Britain, France and North Korea are also in hold of
weapons of mass destruction, all of whom can use them effectively. So
why not go to war with them? Well Britain and France are known to have
close ties with America, but North Korea on the other hand is seen as
an enemy to the United States....
... middle of paper ...
...ching, weapons inspectors that were
sent into Iraq by the UN were ordered out, however, in the time that
they were there, they found nothing. And since the end of the war, no
weapons have been found. So was it all for nothing?
Although the coalition forces did manage to capture the “evil
dictator” himself, no weapons have been found and although this has
been good news for the Iraqi people, it has left them in a worse state
than they were before, as many houses, hospitals and buildings have
been destroyed and the loss of civilian life has been great.
So were the coalition forces wrong to go in? Who knows? Good has come
out of it, as now the Iraqi people no longer feel oppressed, however,
it will be a long time before they get back to the country they were
before the economic sanctions were placed on them by the UN.
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.
The Vietnam War was the longest and most expensive war in American History. The toll we paid wasn't just financial, it cost the people involved greatly, physically and mentally. This war caused great distress and sadness, as well as national confusion. Everyone had that one burning question being why? Why were we even there? The other question being why did America withdrawal from Vietnam. The purpose of this paper is to answer these two burning questions, and perhaps add some clarity to the confusion American was experiencing.
“The [ American ] Revolution...was in the minds and hearts of the people. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affections...was the real American Revolution”- John Adams,1818. This quote symbolizes the reasons, and importance for the Colonists wanting freedom.Great Britain had left the Colonists to govern themselves till the 1760s.The Colonists developed different lifestyles than Britain. They had different perceptions of how a government should rule their citizens. They did not want to be controlled at Britain's behest. Unreasonable laws, and taxes were why the Colonists went war.
The first issue to be considered is what is war and what is its definition. The student of war needs to be careful in examining definitions of war, for like any social phenomena, definitions are varied, and often the proposed definition masks a particular political or philosophical stance paraded by the author. This is as true of dictionary definitions as well as of articles on military or political history.
School 1: States that want to achieve more power, use war as the means to gain more power or maintain power in Anarchical world.
Each administration has developed efforts to use force in defending their nation. The outcome of the victory is varied. The job can be achieved through appropriate preparation. The coalition service in the premature phases of military operation was to disarm Iraq. The appropriate echelon of investigation fulfilled of the political spectrum is the state level analysis. The satisfactory motives for understanding why this approach was considered are listed below. The imminent approach was to provide detailed facts about the state level analysis, individual analysis, and system level analysis. All of these perspectives were deliberated through one’s interpretation of their profession.
William Butler Yeats wrote the poem, “On Being Asked for a War Poem,” after he was asked to write a political poem on the first World War. Many feel that this poem reflects Yeats’ inner conflict over whether poets can write war poetry. To others, this poem considers a recurring question, what is the role of the poet in society, and what is the function of poetry? In this poem, Yeats communicates his opinion that a poet should speak only about traditional romantic subjects and leave the war to soldiers and politicians. In one line in particular he states that poets “have no gift to set a statesman right.” The position taken by Yeats is that poets have no “gift”, or ability, to tell statesman how they should make decisions. In his opinion,
War is the epitome of cruelty and violence, an experience that can prove maddening and strip away some of the most intrinsic characteristics of humanity. Kurt Vonnegut’s experiences as a prisoner of war during World War II inspired his critically hailed novel Slaughterhouse-Five (1969), in which characters continually search for meaning in the aftermath of mankind’s irrational cruelty ("Kurt Vonnegut: 1922-2007" 287). Both the main character, Billy Pilgrim, and Vonnegut have been in Dresden for the firebombing, and that is what motivates their narrative (Klinkowitz 335). In his anti-war novel Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut expresses the adverse emotional effects of war through the psyche of Billy Pilgrim.
When a person sees all the grisly images of war on the television set they cannot help but think, “This has got to stop”. But what reasons can this person justify their decision on? There are many people in the world who can only argue their opinion through what they see on TV, which of course is not what war is. In William Earle’s essay “In Defense of War” and Trudy Govier’s “Nuclear Illusion and Individual Obligations” we respectively see a pro-war and an anti-war opinion. We must differentiate between the two because Earle’s essay talks about war in generalities but Govier focuses on the nuclear aspect of war. As with most essays discussing similar topics they have their similarities and differences and that will be a big part of discussion here. Subjects referring to the morality and justification as war and exactly what we can use to justify it are some of the few things that will be mentioned. These will also be discussed in ethical terms and what part of ethics they fall into. Along with this will be an analysis of why each essay falls into its given category. The strengths of each essay will be mentioned as well as the weaknesses and a comparison as to which is the stronger essay and which is the weaker essay will be provided. The most important part, however, is the basic understanding of the message that the author is trying to get across. These main points will be highlighted throughout the paper when discussing the essay in question along with the provided evidence that accompanies the argument. Finally, a personal take on the subject from me will be provided just to clarify any discrepancies about what is written. I am writing this (aside from the fact it is a major assignment) in hopes that the reader will take these questions seriously and be able to look at both sides of the debate rationally and without fallacy.
War and Nation-Building The term ‘nation-building’ is often defined as evolution rather than revolution, though it can mean different things to different people. As that reason, nation-building refers to give assistance in the development of governmental basic structure, civil society and economics in a dysfunctional or unstable country in order to increase stability. Therefore, War, which may lead to civil or global confusion, does not promote nation-building.
The Vietnam War was a war the Americans fought in. Communism was spreading and the United States got involved because we didn’t want to see communist takeover. The North Vietnamese government were fighting to reunify Vietnam. This could perhaps outspread and we need to stop communist in the world. In 1954 conflict in the region had stretched back (Vietnam War). Economic aid, diplomacy, politics, presidential personalities, and military force were included with the process (Stur). At the time, President Lyndon Johnson said, ““ I am not going to be the President who saw Southeast Asia go the way of China” (Hoobler & Hoobler pg. 69). This is why the U.S.
Thousands of innocent Syrians have been killed. This is one of the worst, departure of people since the Rwandan genocide in Africa, where thousands of innocent people each day,
For more than forty years, the threat of nuclear armageddon hung over the world, and only faded from consciousness following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet Union. Although the threat of nuclear war no longer occupies the publics attention, other threats have arisen to take their place. The Cold War left a legacy on the United States, the Soviet Union, and the entire world. Although some may argue that the negative effects of the cold war outweigh the positive, some good and some bad came from the Cold War. Living in fear is nothing that anyone wants to go through. Especially when that fear is so drastic as nuclear war. Not only death, but the possibility of the annihilation of the entire human race was at hands throughout the Cold War. The legacy of nuclear war left behind by the Cold War is one that would never leave.
The image of the US has been damaged and the Iraqi people have been angry and hateful toward the US ever since.
“Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital.”[1]