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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The image of the US has been damaged and the Iraqi people have been angry and hateful toward the US ever since.
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.
...sh, because they no longer have a government, but whenever the U.S. tries to rebuild their government, the Iraqis always refuse. If we would leave immediately then that would let the Iraqis rebuild their own government the way they want it. Many people believe that the U.S. should create a fund for Iraq in order to help them get back on track. They could use the money to rebuild or reconstruct their country, their government, and anything else that the U.S. helped to destroy (Bennis 6).
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,
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,
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.
“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]