The United States mission the first time was to find and detain Osama bin Laden after he ordered the 9/11 attack. During the war many soldiers’ lives were lost, severely injured and/or changed drastically. Our soldiers that were injured or gave the ultimate sacrifice did it to keep our country safe and help the Iraqi government get control of their country. We did finally find and kill Osama Bin Laden but to what cost. A lot of families will never be the same due to this war, they lost brother, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, and cousins. The United States completed their mission and helped with establishing a new government structure; therefore the war should be over and let the Iraqi government try to fend for themselves. The U.S. has gone into even more debt due to this war.…
The regime has long lasting and continuing ties to terrorist inside Iraq. This regime is seeking nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” It was later showed that there was absolutely no proof of nuclear weapons inside Iraq and they were harboring no WMDs and also having no ties with any terrorist groups. This is one of the hundreds of lies that the bush administration was using to try to persuade and fear the public into support of this war, making it appear to be a matter of life and death. In fact in 2002 there was a campaign created by the White House Iraq group with the bush administration coordinated with policy officials to spread Bush’s lies. But this war wasn't only for the “good” of America, it was also for personal gain. The Bush family has been accused (and recorded) to have done business with companies that have has worked with Osama Bin Laden, the Caryle Group. Also, with the growing tensions the Middle East and the United States pre 9/11, the Bush family invested in companies that acquired weapon contracts after the invasion; boosting their profits (Wall Street…
While most Americans call the war the, “American-Mexican War”, the other side would call it, “The U.S. Invasion”. If it is God’s reasoning to expand the U.S. territory as far as possible, then is it also his reasoning to murder those upon their own land? It is not only unjustified to take the land from the Mexicans, however to become inhuman enough to kill those while doing so is unspeakable. There was no need for any more conflict at that time, so to start a war was not ideal for anyone. Would a war be more beneficial or cost efficient than a compromise or a buyout? The Mexicans had only simple ideas of allowing outsiders into their land to increase population. In the words of General Francisco Mejia, “The right of conquest has always been…
1) How did Tony Allison’s early life experiences in Kenya prepare him to make the discovery of the sickle cell-malaria link?…
Although the U.S. got involved to try and help the situation based on their statement that “a threat to any nation in that region is a threat to us,” but all it did was cause more issues and left the U.S. with no real victory as well as with millions of unnecessary casualties on both sides (Doc. 7- L.B. Johnson, Tonkin Gulf Resolution 1964). The efforts put into the war including the lives of dedicated soldiers, precious amounts of government money and tons of hope put in possible victory all ended up being complete wastes. Therefore, no, the United States should not have entered the war in…
“The reason we invaded Iraq was for reasons far more than weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who waged many wars in the Middle East, supported and aided numerous Aab invasions of Israel, threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, overran Kuwait, and caused the UN to bring about sanctions against Iraq. Saddam was also known to have an extensive chemical weapons arsenal and has used several chemical weapons against his own people while suppressing many human…
However, in 1990, when Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait, President George Bush of the United States decided to take action. Iraq acquired a huge debt in her war against Iran, and the abundant oil supply in Kuwait was an attractive means of erasing this debt. With Iraq in control of a large amount of the World 's oil supply, the United States would be at Saddam Hussein 's mercy. In addition to the Kuwaiti oppression, the United States could not let this monopoly take place. President Bush commanded a prolonged series of bombings on Iraq which resulted in Hussein 's eventual withdrawal from Kuwait. This was not a war of containment, but it served a similar purpose in that it sought to prevent an aggressor from overtaking a weaker neighbor. Also, the United States fought for her oily supply, giving the war significant purpose in contrast to wide opinions concerning the Vietnam War (Schwartzkopf 55). Thus, the Gulf War received exponentially more praise and reestablished the validity of the Truman Doctrine (Schwartzkopf…
The intervention of America overseas, was it justified? Its all at how you look at it. Some people say it was, because Germany had to much power others say it wasnt. The argument is one big chess game. Despite what others say I say it was justified.…
President Bush’s justification towards the invasion on Iraq in 2004 explicated that the main reason to invade Iraq was security measures. Bush was terrified for the citizens of his country and the rest of the world, as he thought Iraq was in control of nuclear weapons that could harm everyone. However, this was not a true reflection of America’s ambitions in Iraq. This essay will prove that America’s intentions into Iraq was largely the fact that Iraq was a major oil source for the world and if America could dominate this source they could have more authority than any other country. Bush’s administration also misstated information regarding Iraq’s possessions of any Weapons of Mass Destruction, and their links with Al Qaeda for this purpose.…
The president can use military power as he decides is essential and proper to shield national security and authorize all relevant United Nations Security chamber resolutions to use force. Before starting war, under obligations Bush had to make accessible to Congress his assurance of circumstances. Indeed, under requirements he had to prove that Iraq was infringing upon UN resolutions by yet being in control of weapons of mass destruction, and furthermore that Iraq was behind the 9-11 assaults. Invading Iraq started before any peaceful resolutions, an alliance between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and a threat of weapons of mass destruction was proven. In his book, Record emphasizes how the 9/11 Commission reported in 2005 that while there may have been contacts between al Qaeda and the Baathist administration, have seen no proof that these ever formed into a community relationship; nor have we seen confirmation showing that Iraq participated with al Qaeda in creating or completing assaults against the United States” (51). Furthermore, Hussein allowed UN auditors to have access to suspected weapons areas. They reported that there was no proof or conceivable sign of an atomic weapons program in Iraq. Record concludes, Iraq was a choice not because it was a convincing security threat but…
Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal tyrants in the last hundred years. He is considered to be responsible for the death of nearly two million people. He first ordered for the killing of about 100,000 Kurds-Iraqi citizens based in the north of the country- because he believed them to be a threat to him. Then he followed that up with the ordered killing of tens of thousands of Shi’i Muslims and thousands more Kurds in 1991. These death counts, as high as they are, don’t even include the deaths from two of the bloodiest wars in Iraqi history. If you were to add up all these deaths, Saddam would be responsible for approximately more than 2 million deaths. This obviously shows that Saddam Hussein was the cause of the eventual war against the US.…
Jong Heon Yoo 10B Hiroshima Project Essay Essay Question: “To what extent was the U.S. justified in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?” The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki dropped or not, were ones of the man-made disasters that occurred on August 6 1945, and August 9 1945 respectively. The launching of the atomic bomb has numerous opinions and aspects on whether United States of America should be justified for launching atomic bombs on those cities or not. The essay question for our class is, “To what extent was the United States justified in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?”. It is hard to mention that US’s action to set bombs Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely reasonable, however, it is to a larger extent justified.…
The reasons given for the original invasion of Iraq (Bush, 2003) mainly surrounded that there was supposedly "irrefutable" evidence that Iraq had, and was prepared to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction. The claim was that these weapons were an imminent danger to the USA. Once America invaded Iraq, and the initial success was replaced by a Vietnam-like war of attrition against an unseen enemy. The original reason for the invasion of Iraq was either mistaken or deliberately misleading, so no more soldiers should be lost in fighting for a war that was not needed.…
Saddam Hussein was a member of the Baathist Party so in order to remove his presents in the country’s infrastructure the United States removed all Baathist affiliates from their positions. While on the surface this seemed like a good idea, there were crucial details that were not taken into account. Details such as: the importance of the workers affiliated with the Baathists, and the reasons why workers associated themselves with the Baathist party. After the De-Baathification of Iraq many very important shoes were left unfilled, so the military replaced them with their own. “Now you have an American Soldier, who majored in Art History running the power grids, or someone else who is highly unqualified.” As these issues came to light the U.S. started letting these qualified Iraqi Citizens return to their jobs. New information exposed another oversight within this decision: The United States did not take into account that many Iraqi citizens joined the Baathist party out of necessity. Similar to Nazi Germany people affiliated with the Baathist party in order to get promoted and develop their career and not necessarily out of principal. While it was necessary to remove Saddam’s followers it should not have been at the cost of the country. In order to avoid this set back, the U.S. should have done more research on the party and the country’s infrastructure so that they could have made the transition smoother and prevented the removal of employees that were key components to the Iraqi…
They invaded we were trying to protect,but US called war. Many historians disagree whether the war was justified or unjustified. For example Mexican- American war was controversial topic. Does the United States have a right to go war ? The United States was not justified in going to war with Mexico because border problems,US invaded Mexico land , and Mexico have different rules.…