Looks at three events, which the author believes are the most significant in American history after 1865: the Reconstruction era, the New Deal, and the War on Terror
Abstract This paper describes the Reconstruction era with its racial propositions, the New Deal with its economic repercussions and the War on Terror with its military implications. The author points out that these important historical aspects of racial, economic, and military developments helped to preserve the stability and homogeneity of the American ideology of prosperity and racial integrity after the Civil War. The paper concludes that the events play three distinct roles in why America became a more powerful country in relation to its supremacy in the world.
From the Paper "The Emergency Banking Act helped to create a stable banking system that would retrieve (through federal loans and insurance regulations) much of the "hoarded" monies that were taken out of banks after the crash of 1929. The act forced banks to be supervised by the United States Treasury, which had immediately allowed them to reopen under the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) helped to ensure banking depositors that monies would be insured in the case of the banking institutions demise."
Abstract This paper analyzes America's position regarding global terror and questions whether U.S. wars foster worldwide hatred of Americans. The writer of this paper contends that the ongoing U.S. war on terrorism is misguided and can only promise more terrorism as a result. This paper examines the fundamentals of terrorism, which need to be understood as a means of waging warfare, usually adopted by those who possess significant strategic and militaristic shortcomings. This paper details President Bush's stance on terrorism, which became clear at the September 2002 national debate. In his speech, of which various portions of the text are cited in this paper, Bush laid out what he believed to be the primary function of the U.S. government. While many people have applauded Bush's active policy against terrorism and supported his reasoning behind the war in Iraq, there are those, like former president Jimmy Carter who feel differently. This paper touches on Carter's 2002 speech in which the former presidents brought up a number of problems he had with the movement towards Iraq. This paper also discusses the manner in which the Bush administration has chosen a particular perspective, that is intended to justify the employment of the U.S. military as a tool in rooting out terrorism.
From the Paper "Not everyone has been as enchanted by Bush's war on terrorism as Charles Colson. Jimmy Carter, in his speech to the Nobel committee in December of 2002 brought up a number of the problems he sees with the movement towards Iraq as an aspect of the war on terrorism. He quotes Ralph Bunche as having said, "To suggest that war can prevent war is a base play on words and a despicable form of warmongering." A more concrete objection is the continued unilateral actions of the United States under the Bush regime. He states, "If we accept the premise that the United Nations is the best avenue for maintenance of peace, then the carefully considered decisions of the United Nations Security Council must be enforced." This is a criticism of Bush's continued assertion that the United States needs to continue working through the United Nations, while simultaneously operating without its support."
Tags: u.s., america, war, terror, terrorism, iraq, jimmy, carter, government, political, military
Abstract This paper looks at how, thus far, the UK and the US have worked together fairly smoothly on the war on terror, but that the war on Iraq has placed severe strain on the special relationship developed between these two countries.
From the Paper "This research paper discusses the current state of the special relationship' between the United Kingdom and the United States in the light of the war on terror and the current Iraq war. The special relationship' refers to the close military and diplomatic cooperation that has characterized Anglo-American relations since..."
Tags: United Kingdom, United States, terrorism, Iraq, War on Terror
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 The paper relates that after the events of 9/11, the US was able to further the idea that state sponsorship of terrorist activities was evident and therefore it was necessary to wage war with Iraq. The paper discusses if the aggressive invasion of Iraq was in fact appropriate to improve security in the US, or if it served to increase the threat to the US. The paper comes to the conclusion that there was absolutely no connection between Iraq and the terrorism of 9/11, and in fact, the war in Iraq is now likely to worsen rather than diffuse the situation. The paper asserts that aggressive actions of the US and the perception by the world of those actions and their source will likely create a greater international hatred for the US than what already exists.
From the Paper "There is little doubt that the actions of the US in its invasion and subsequent war on Iraq will in retrospect be billed as similar in coarse to the Clinton bombing of the pharmaceutical factory but clearly much greater in scale. The war was engaged in regardless of the fact that the truths with regard to Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his actions as well as many other issues were convoluted and often built on myth rather than factual evidence. Myths range in severity from, Hussein's utilization of WMDs to kill his own people, an exaggeration to say the least and that Hussein had been actively attempting to build WMD, since "he" expelled inspectors from Iraq in 1998, again a falsehood. The development of this myth was pervasive though false, as Reece Kilgoe & Ritter point ou tit was actually President Clinton who expelled the UNSCOM weapons inspectors from Iraq, on the eve of the small scale attack of Iraq in December 1998, Operation Desert Fox, a 72 hour aerial bombardment of Iraq."
Abstract This paper argues that the allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which were never discovered, was a deliberate deception by the Bush administration to justify their aggression in terms of containing terrorism by maintaining the international balance of power. The paper further asserts that Bush ignored the truth that he heard from his advisers and deliberately misled the American people to make an excuse to go to war with Iraq. The paper contends that Bush wanted to secure America's position of dominance, power and access to oil resources in the Middle East and tricked the American people into thinking that going to war with Iraq was a way of waging war on terrorism.
From the Paper "The primary thrust of Bush's argument for the invasion of Iraq was that Iraq was a serious threat to the rest of the world because it was building WMD. This is an interesting allegation, given that the only country that really has a large supply of WMD is the USA. However, it must be borne in mind that those countries who seek to justify owning WMD - such as the USA - seek to do so in terms of deterrence theory. The idea is that if rational countries such as the USA and Russia possess nuclear weapons, their mutual knowledge that the other country has WMD will deter either country from ever deploying the WMD."
Tags: lies, balance of power, terrorism, aluminum tubes, imbalance
Abstract The paper contends that the US-led coalition power has failed to achieve its mission in Iraq. The paper begins by explaining that when George W. Bush and Tony Blair declared war on Iraq, they proclaimed that they had solid evidence that Iraq had been trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. The paper continues that they never found these weapons and so now they have severe problems in upholding justification for the war. The paper describes the worsening situation in Iraq and includes a diary excerpt of a young Iraqi woman's suffering. The paper concludes that the war in Iraq should not have occurred because the invasion was no more than a punishment for Iraq, encouraged by American victims of 9.11 thinking, "We should do something about terrorism."
From the Paper "The US-led coalition power has failed to achieve its mission in Iraq. From the very start, there were no persuasive reasons that justified invading Iraq. Not only did the coalition make unreasonable demands on a sovereign country, the coalition never found menacing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and never proved its allegation that the Iraqi government was connected with Al-Qaeda. Failing to provide evidence for these charges, the leaders of the coalition power and some pro-war scholars have begun positioning the war in another way. Instead of admitting failure, they insist that the war was necessary to promote democracy in Iraq. Also, the US and the UK have not been successful in securing public order and peace in Iraq for the last three years after major combat ended because of their poor planning. Last, but not least, the war has not produced better results. Iraq has been brutally destroyed based on false accusations. And, Americans are not any more secure from terrorism. Because the attack on Iraq by the US-led coalition power has not met its objectives, it has been a wasted effort that should not have occurred."
Argues that an attack on Iraq by the United States is detrimental to U.S. and global interests and that there are much more effective ways to fight terrorism than by initiating a war with Iraq.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, 2002, $ 44.95
Abstract Over the course of the last five decades, the world has looked to the United States of America to stand up and provide a model of international leadership and stability in order to help manage international and internal military, political, and economic problems. Until now, we have acted as the world's protector, taking down bullies after they have hurt and harmed others. This year, however, or early into next, our position, to never take the first shot that will start a war will change, if George W. Bush has his way. We, as a nation, have played a direct role in the improvement of the world condition by quelling conflict wherever we could. But, Iraq, the target of our renewed aggression, will prove to be a much different animal than the others we have captured and tamed since 1945. Iraq's power is not really in its arsenal or in its military (both of which are small, primitive by comparison to the U.S., and ineffective), it is in its ability to motivate thousands if not millions of individuals to act without coordination in a violent and unpredictable manner against the United States and the rest of the western world. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate the extreme danger and relative uselessness in attacking Iraq, to show that to do so is an exercise in futility, and that we can pursue much more effective means of preventing terrorism than to stir up the hornets' nest.
Abstract This paper looks at the recent historical relations between the United States and Iraq and discusses the reasons the Bush Administration cited for launching an attack on Iraq. The justifications for U.S. policy in Iraq and the ineffectiveness of this policy are discussed, and arguments are presented that maintain that the Bush Administration's unilateral decision to attack Iraq has resulted in more hostility toward the U.S. and will cause more problems and terrorism later.
From the Paper "When the U.S. was attacked by terrorists, American leaders suspected that Iraq may have ties to international terrorists and was actively trying to make nuclear and biological weapons (Sheldon, 2003). Under Resolution 1441, Iraq is obliged to declare all of its weapons programs. Any false statements in Iraq's weapons declaration, combined with a failure to comply with and cooperate with the resolution, puts Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations?which is cause for war. For this reason, and for reasons linked to Iraq's past history, President Bush decided to attack Iraq and get rid of Hussein permanently."
Tags: september, 11, world, trade, center, pentagon, pennsylvania, george, war, on, terrorism, taliban, al, queda, saddam, hussein, osama, bin, laden
Abstract This paper explores how the War on Terror effects the citizens of the country under attack and how the people of Iraq are the ones most harmed in their day-to-day lives by the ongoing war. It discusses the issues of humanitarian aid and sanctions and how bombings can disrupt the food supply of the citizens of Iraq.
From the Paper "The world is currently undergoing and experiencing a war waged by the United States against Iraq in the country's (USA?s) protest and action against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. This new war is talked about not only because of the destructions that are happening in Iraq, but also because of the possible effects that this event may have on all nations, especially Iraq as a nation and its people. For Iraq, the declared war against the nation implies many things to its people. Chaos became not only probable, but a reality, and with this reality comes the various detrimental effects that war can bring to humankind. One of the primary effects that war can bring to humankind is death and destruction; death to millions of innocent civilians and soldiers who fought for the war. Destruction of physical geography is also inevitable since war is primarily done to disable the enemy, and this was done by bombing all of the government buildings and significant establishments related to Saddam Hussein's regime."
Abstract This paper explains that the unprecedented impact of 9/11 on the consciousness of America and the international community is a new kind of globalized fear surrounding security, which is the product of shared cultural, political and technological factors characterizing the globalized world against another distinct culture, which aims to destroy rather than build or maintain life. The author points out the interrelationship of countries by relating that Arafat's Palestinian Authority documents unmistakably showed that the PA received money from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq, which then was given to terrorist commanders for acts of terrorism against Israelis. The paper relates that the FBI categorizes international terrorism in the U.S. into three categories: (1) Activities of foreign sponsors, such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba and North Korea, which used terrorism as an operational tool of foreign policy in the past; (2) formalized terrorist groups, such as the Lebanese Hezbollah, Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiyya of Egypt and the HAMAS of Palestine and (3) loosely affiliated international radical extremists who do not represent a particular country, such as those behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 in New York City.
From the Paper "Developments in the international scene have enabled mass-casualty terrorism. Perceived and gross inequalities in economic resources and standards of living among nations in the world have motivated international terrorism and determined the level of ferocity and viciousness of attacks. Poverty was often blamed as the main cause of domestic terrorism, although there appears no "comprehensive correlation between" poverty and terrorism. But it is different in the international scenario. Free-market globalization gave the Islamic world access to Western values and institutions and this offers explanation for the growth of international terrorism, which is the weaker party's occasion to hit back."
Abstract The paper contends that the U.S. occupation of Iraq has contributed to a deeper sense of insecurity at home on the part of Americans and has not helped reduce the magnitude of worldwide terrorism. The paper examines the main arguments in favor of military withdrawal from Iraq and shows how the American intervention in Iraq has profoundly influenced the level of hatred for the United States around the world.
From the Paper "The war in Iraq is an ongoing conflict which started with the American and British allied forces' invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. The invasion was launched by a coalition of army forces from the United States, United Kingdom and Spain, at the command of President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. Their common reason behind the invasion of Iraq was that Iraq was actively developing weapons of mass destruction, and they invoked the Iraqi refusal to surrender these weapons and to cease all activities in this field."
An argument in support of the United States refraining from attacking Iraq, because it would cause tremendous human suffering and serious harm to American interests throughout the world.
Abstract The paper argues for the United States to act in concert with other nations in containing the Iraqi dictator. It provides a history of the United Nations endorsed 1990 Gulf War. The author describes how the U.S. interest in Iraq is its oil and weapons of mass destruction. The author of the paper expresses fear that a unilateral U.S. war on Iraq would cause terrorism and anti-American sentiment worldwide.
From the Paper "In 1991, the United States, with the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council, launched an offensive against Iraq shortly after the latter invaded Kuwait. The war's aims, according then president George Bush, were the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, stabilization of the Gulf, and protection of Americans in Kuwait. (Ambrose & Brinkley) Two major reasons for the war not mentioned by Bush, it is widely acknowledged, were the protection of American oil interests in the region and the disarmament of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. After few days of bombings Iraq surrendered and withdrew its forces from Kuwait, thereby realizing the stated objectives of the war. As the war ended, and throughout the 1990?s, the UN, under American leadership, enforced various sanctions on Iraq with the hope of preventing Hussein's regime from obtaining biological and nuclear weapons. Nowadays, particularly after Hussein expelled international arms inspectors from Iraq in 1998, and even more so after the relative success of the war in Afghanistan, many Americans are convinced that the US, with or without international backing, should invade Iraq with the goal of removing Hussein and inserting a regime that will be favorable to American interests. While reasonable arguments are being made about the dangers emanating from the Iraqi regime, the unilateralist military overthrow of the Iraqi government is likely to have negative ramifications on both American and universal interests for many years to come."
Abstract This paper discusses how the United States foreign policy toward the Middle East has been greatly tested, challenged and even questioned. From the Iran-contra scandal that plagued the Reagan administration even down to the current foreign policy concerning anti-terrorism, it looks at how the nation has been forced to constantly evaluate how much its foreign policy measures up to its ideals of freedom and liberty. It analyzes the relationship with Iraq and how the United States is justified in its current ideologies as it concerns Iraq. It evaluates how its application of that policy not only contradicts the United Nations'(UN) policy, but it also defeats itself, for its application deviates far from its theoretical principles.
Outline
Iraqi History and Foreign Policy
Historical View of U.S. Foreign Policy
Current U.S. Foreign Policy and Its Problems
From the Paper "The United States also claims that the Iraqi government is still manufacturing and mass-producing weapons of mass destruction; and therefore, it is the United States? duty to stop Iraq from producing such weapons. The problem with this argument is that the conflict regarding Iraq's alleged production of mass destruction has always been a conflict between the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not between Iraq and the United States. Additionally, before the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was withdrawn from Iraq, it documented the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, forty-eight missiles, six missile launchers, thirty missile warheads, and hundreds of materials that were equipped with the ability to produce chemical weapons (Zunes 2). While early UNSCOM inspections revealed evidence of Iraq producing large amounts of biological agents (to include anthrax), it quickly set up highly technological devices to detect chemical and biological weapons, even after they were dismantled after the December 1998 bombing raids from the Clinton administration. And even if the Iraqi government were to be bold enough to continue to engage in mass production of biological and/or chemical weapons, these weapons would almost certainly be detected by the satellite system put in place by UNSCOM and later destroyed in tactical air strikes."
Abstract Although most Americans have argued that the United States is a helper in world crisis, closer examination shows that the United States of America is a supporter of violence throughout the world. This paper contends that with the extensive support the U.S. gives to Israel, the support of supplied weapons to Suharto's seizure of power in Indonesia, the use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus as weapons, the lack of timely intervention in Rwanda, false justification for the occupation of Iraq, harsh foreign policies and the related fatalities, the United States of America remains a terrorist country.
Outline
Arms Sales
Chemical Weapons
Indonesia
The Iran-Iraq War
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Rwanda
United States' Occupation of Iraq War in Afghanistan
Panama
Gulf War
From the Paper "The United States' international arms sales were measured at over 3 billion in 2003. Since September 11, 2001 the United States has lifted the sanctions imposed in 1998 on Pakistan and India in an effort to gain allies. Since then "Pakistan and India have benefited from billions of dollars in new military aid, training, and weaponry" (Barrigan, Hartung, Heffel. June 2005). Although the argument could be made that international arms sales is economically beneficial for the United States, selling weapons to countries considered to be undemocratic, with less than standard Human Rights records, contributes to terrorism."
