Abstract This paper explains that it is difficult to determine whether the IraqWar has been beneficial or detrimental to the U.S. economy in particular and the global economy overall. The author points out that the bias of the periodicals covering this topic tends to reduce the ability to effectively explore these issues, for the debate tends to be charged in favor of the bias held by the periodical. This paper demonstrates this bias in exploring the economic outcome of the IraqWar as presented in conservative and liberal publications.
From the Paper "The characterization of whether the Iraq War is a moral or an immoral war tends to correspond to whether the publication reporting on it reflects party-line values. The Iraq War has been roundly criticized for its role in the dissolution of security within Iraq, and the increasing lack of security within the Middle East and within countries with corresponding Muslim and Arabic beliefs. In attempting to rebuild Iraq following the official close of the war, and also in attempting to promote security within Iraq and within the surrounding countries, the ability to profit from reconstruction in Iraq has characterized much of the debate over the moral status of the Iraq War. It is difficult to determine whether the War has been beneficial or detrimental to the U.S. economy in particular, as well as the global economy overall."
Abstract This paper explains that the fundamental basis for liberal internationalism is the coupling of a commitment to freedom and to a free market economy with the desire to spread the country's sphere of influence. The author points out that aggressive liberal internationalism has been characterized by the willingness of a few powerful nations, such as the United States and Great Britain, to use military and political force to promote these liberal ideals and paradoxically promote peace and security. The paper argues that, although some people argue that not enough time has passed for the roots of liberalism to take hold in Iraq and help stabilize the region, this policy has failed in Iraq. The author concludes that it is impossible to impose liberal policies and institutions on societies and cultures that have no tradition of liberalism.
From the Paper "Critics have argued that the nearly unilateral invasion of Iraq by the United States represents the nation's departure from the liberal tradition in international relations. But this is not the case. Liberal internationalism is simply a theoretical approach to international relations that works to spread the influence of the liberal tradition, and even, in extreme cases, to punish those nations who do not abide by that tradition. While, in a practical sense, it makes little sense for there to be a liberal international order of only one nation..."
Abstract This paper explains that no aspect of the U.S. economy has remained unchanged during any given war. The author points out that the current Iraqwar has positioned itself to possibly be the longest in U.S. history and hence the most expensive. The paper relates that, with more than 1 million U.S. troops in Iraq, the cost of long-term medical care and disability benefits will continue for years after the war. The paper underscores that post-war occupation and reconstruction, an inevitable factor in this conflict adds an even higher cost to the war. The author concludes that, in addition to direct costs, the Iraqwar is destabilizing the economy by causing increasing oil prices, uncertainty in the credit market, inflation created by a greater demand of economic goods and services, and an increasing need to pay for the war with borrowed dollars.
From the Paper "With the increased costs of war comes a hefty interest payment on the national deficit. Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Chairman Sen. Charles E. Schumer, JEC Vice-Chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney , released a new report exposing the hidden costs of the war in Iraq. The Joint Economic Committee report entitled, "War at Any Price? The Total Economic Costs of the War" details the high hidden economic costs of the war in Iraq beyond the direct budgetary appropriations, including interest costs of borrowing these funds, lost investment, long term veteran's health care, and oil market disruptions."
Tags: world war ii, vietnam war, subprime oil uncertainty
Abstract This paper discusses the role of special interest groups regarding the Iraqwar. The paper makes comparisons between organized interest groups, PACs, candidates and political parties. The paper asserts that antiwar interest groups are especially prevalent, in contrast to absence of public mobilization by pro-war groups. The paper also considers whether there is a possibility of covert pro-war political activity.
Tags: special, interest, groups, PACs, iraq, war, MoveOn, Project, for, the, New, American, Century, (PNAC)
Abstract This paper discusses how Bodansky offers a non-fictional account of the validity of attacking Iraq, which is often founded on false intelligence, and other forms of second hand propagandistic information from American news sources. Although his presence on terrorist congressional committees give him a very real presence when presenting his information, it becomes obvious that his link with American government decries his sense of bias.
From the Paper "This book review will critically analyze 'The Secret History of the Iraq War' by Yossef Bodansky. The highly unbiased nature of this historical study of the War in Iraq is often propagandistic and does not present solid evidence for validating an American attack. Often, he argues that an American invasion was warranted on the basis of WMDs and Saddam Hussein's role in activating terrorist cells for Bin Laden. However, after finding no WMDs or a solid connection to Bin Laden, Bodansky often reiterates a propagandistic diatribe that falls short."
Abstract This paper examines the argument that the current Iraqwar involves important business ethics issues that take the gloss off the American military "victory", supposedly achieved for ?Iraqi freedom.? It looks at how the attack was justified for more than the need to destroy "Weapons of mass destruction", etc., and how one of the main reasons was an American desire to control a region with the second largest proven oil reserves in the world.
From the Paper "Certain events during the current war have also reinforced the belief that business interests are more important to the war planners than any "humanitarian" or "ethical" consideration. Take, for example, the fact that more than 1000 oil wells in Iraq were promptly "secured" and the only building in Baghdad considered worthy of protection by the US marines from the frenzied looting was the oil ministry building. They were silent spectators to the looting and pillaging of precious libraries, hospitals and even renowned Baghdad Museum containing priceless treasures?some dating back to 7000 years. The "excuse" offered by Rumsfeld for failing to prevent looting was: ?Freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes.? (Quoted by Scheer, April 15, 2003) Give us a break, Mr. Rumsfeld!"
Abstract In this paper the author argues that the war in Iraq was utilized as a persuasive tool to win an election, in which the war was linked to the more global and less definable "war on terrorism." The author further contends that in the 2004 presidential elections the voters were seeking security, and therefore they linked the two issues. This paper demonstrates that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are not connected and in fact contraindicated for the long term safety of the US, specifically with regard to future acts of terrorism. Salient quotes from primary and secondary sources are used to support the author's thesis.
From the Paper "The importance and reality of this link are now being questioned at every level. People, in both high and low places are questioning the validity of the connection and asking if this aggressive move, on the part of the US, even in the face of much international opposition was in fact appropriate to improve security in the US and her interests all over the world. The political positioning that has become increasingly obvious has undermined the faith of individuals in the nature and necessity of the War in Iraq, as people feel they were sold a bill of goods, rather than leveled with in regards to the strategic importance of the Iraq in the global war on terrorism in both the short and log term. In fact this work argues that the only connection between the war on terrorism and the War on Iraq is that the later has and will continue to serve to increase terrorist activities and actions against the US, no matter how the government spins it."
Tags:war, in, Iraq, War, on, Terror, George, W., Bush
Abstract This is a personal opinion paper on the topic of Why the IraqWar. The writer believes that President Bush had no choice but to go to war with the mass destruction weapons that Iraq and Saddam had. The United Nations and President Bush gave them extended periods of time to get rid of the weapons, but they kept building more and more mass weapons including chemical warfare.
Abstract The paper maintains that the Iraqwar was based on lies and discusses how President George W. Bush was able to convince Congress and the American people to go to war only because of concealed intelligence. The paper claims that for Bush, September 11 presented an opportunity not only to boost his dismal approval numbers, but to accomplish his long-standing goal of invading Iraq with the backing of the American people. The writer stresses that the U.S. war in Iraq is based on false pretenses and perpetuated by lies and that alone should be enough to end it. The paper is of the opinion that the war is a drain on U.S. funds domestically, it is to the detriment of the American people, it is creating animosity toward the U.S. abroad and is costing the lives of American soldiers.
From the Paper "How did George Bush convince the American people to believe his lies regarding Iraq? The concealing of intelligence regarding Iraq was a start. The CIA as well as international operatives had long ago obtained and presented solid evidence that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, nor the capability of making them, and had no connections with Osama bin Laden (and even had contempt for him). President Bush was well aware of this. Yet he concealed this evidence from Congress when he asked them to approve the war in Iraq. Instead, he presented Congress with his own interpretation of events, that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States. Having little to go on but the president's word, and having a desire to trust the president, the majority of Congress voted to approve the war. The American people, having only the information their Congressional representatives had, and also wanting to trust the president, largely consented to the war."
Abstract In this essay, similarities between the IraqWar and the Vietnam War are discussed. The writer examines different points of view on this issue. The writer looks into the different reasons for going to war. The writer also discusses the need for compromise in Iraq.
From the Paper "A speech by Senator Robert Byrd to the Senate declared 'Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this development' comparing Iraq. It was said amidst the bloodiest month of fighting in the Iraq war and a month which ultimately saw more lives lost than the initial month of war that ended in the fall of Baghdad. Republicans were deeply offended by his words, but they have been echoing ever since in the minds of many."
Abstract This paper presents an examination of the War in Iraq. The writer explores the war from the standpoint that there were no weapons of mass destruction located and yet the nation has not withdrawn from Iraq. The writer argues that the United States has enough to focus on and repair without getting involved in the political process of other nations.
Outline:
Introduction
History
Personal Issue
includes charts and illustration
From the Paper "The world watched in horror as the towers came down on September 11, 2001 but since that day the world as well as America have been divided in whether or not the US should have gone to war in Iraq. When the terrorist attacks first happened millions of Americans supported President Bush's desire to go after world terrorists. When the dust settled and people had time to think, however, the support for war declined but it was still high enough that America forced its way into Iraq on the premise that weapons of mass destruction would be located there. They weren't and today many people have withdrawn their support of the war. It is time for the US to withdraw troops and tend to problems at home. "
Abstract This paper explores the perception that the economic price of the Iraqwar that is being paid is not worthwhile with regard to the expected economic and political outcomes. The paper discusses the growing consensus of opinion, which is strongly supported by leading economists like Joseph Stiglitz, that the economic costs and impact of the war have been grossly underestimated by the present administration. The paper relates the predicted costs for troop withdrawals, military expenditures and weakened economic growth. The paper shows how Stiglitz points out that even the present official estimates of the economic impact of the war do not include less obvious and far-reaching costs that can have a future effect on the economy, such as lifetime disability and health care costs for army veterans.
Outline:
Introduction
Iraq and the economy
Conclusion
From the Paper "The overall effect of the Iraq war on the American economy can be initially estimated by taking the following figures into account. "The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has estimated that the Korean War cost about $430 billion and the Vietnam War cost about $600 billion, in current dollars. According to the latest estimates, the cost of the war in Iraq could exceed $700 billion." (Sterngold, James) These figures for Iraq are however extremely conservative in terms of other more wide-ranging and contemporary assessment of the costs of the war."
Abstract The paper reveals that the Iraqwar has highlighted the negative affects of combat stress and tension in a number of studies of returning and active duty troops. The paper notes the high incidence of post-traumatic stress and explains that this is due to the guerrilla-war nature of the conflict. The paper shows how Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) has seriously debilitating and often long-term consequences for the individual sufferer. The paper maintains that PTSD and other related psychological problems as result of the Iraqwar can no longer be ignored.
Outline:
Introduction and Overview
PTSD and other Psychological Issues
From the Paper "Research show that, conservatively, about thirty percent of troops returning from Iraq have to deal with PTSD or post traumatic stress disorder, among other psychological disorders. One of the aspects that are mentioned as a contributing factor to the high levels of stress in this war is the particular nature of the conflict. As one commentator notes; "This war has no front line, the enemy is impossible to identify, the dangers are everywhere. There is no safe place." (Hare) The stressful nature of the combat situation where danger and threat are continuous has led clinical psychologists to state that, "Nobody comes back unaffected." (Hare) "
Tags: posttraumatic, stress, combat, guerrilla, mental, health
Abstract This paper examines the Iraqwar from within the framework of the 'just war' theory and the legal parameters established by the United Nations through the Law of War. Through a critical analysis of the justifications presented for the war versus both the letter and the spirit of international law, the paper argues that this is an illegitimate war. The paper contends that the United States is in violation of international laws.
Outline
Introduction
The Legitimacy Question of the Current War The Doctrine of Preemption and International Law
United States' Violations of International Law
Conclusion
From the Paper "Following the destruction nations suffered in the wake of World War Two, the international community realized the necessity of establishing mechanisms for the prevention of war and the control of warfare. One means of preventing war was to establish a set of laws, outlining the precise circumstances under which wars may be conducted. The legal circumstances under which war can be conducted are expressed in the United Nations' Charter and the Law of War, both of which are based on the "just war doctrine" (Falk). The just war doctrine emphasizes the difference between wars that are morally principles and which are, basically, justified and those which are neither justified nor based on accepted principles. According to the United Nations' Charter, wars are just only in two cases. The first case is if it is a war of defence against a real threat, or against an actual attack, carried out by another nation (Falk). The second case is if the United Nations Security Council determines that a particular nation is in violation of international law, persistently rejects the application of international law and denies the validity and legitimacy of its institutions, thereby constituting a real threat to regional/global peace and security (Falk). In this case, the United Nations Security Council passes a resolution that legitimizing and authorizing war (Falk). This is what occurred during the first Gulf war of 1991."
Abstract This paper strongly argues that the IraqWar is wrong and that the American people have been misled into supporting it. The author cites Senator Robert Byrd and his anti-Iraq policy as supporting the paper's thesis. The author gives his own opinions why President Bush was so adamant regarding Saddam's capture and overthrow.
From the Paper "I have said from the beginning of the war that we seem to have forgotten about Bin Laden and simply focused on Saddam. I believe that Bush used the events of 9-11 to gain public support to go after Bin Laden when in fact he really wanted to use our military to go after Saddam for taking a hit out on Bush's dad in the early 90's.
"The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one(Byrd, 2003)." "
