| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "BRITAIN IRAQ CONFLICT": |
|
|
Britain and the Iraq Conflict, 2002.
This paper reviews Britain's position on its participation in the current Iraqi conflict by examining public opinion polls.
2,540 words (approx. 10.2 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Britain?s government rarely undertakes actions that are not either popular or predicted to be popular. Therefore, Tony Blair relies largely on ?focus groups? designed to poll popular opinion before undertaking any serious legislative measures. The author points out that a war for public opinion in the polls is a war between demographics, where similar people will answer the opinion poll in like fashion. The paper concludes that, even if most Britons think of the Iraqi conflict in terms of a glorified television spectacle, their leaders have not forgotten the benefits Britain once enjoyed supporting the old regime.
From the Paper
"According to the Reuters news organization, a poll released on Saturday, April 5th, 51% of Britons see ?a high death toll as a price worth paying for victory in the nation's war against Iraq,? according to the YouGov polling organization. This number falls only slightly short of the 55% of Britons that support the war, but is vastly different from pre-war polls, which found two thirds of UK residents opposed to declaring war on Iraq without United Nations support."
| |
|
Modern Iraq's History of Social Conflict, 2006.
A discussion of the various social and political conflicts that have troubled Iraq in modern times.
690 words (approx. 2.8 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the social and political conflicts that have plagued modern Iraqi history. The paper argues that the current war in Iraq is the result of unresolved tensions betwen ethnic and religious factions in the country.
From the Paper
"Political scientist Michael J Sodaro's writing of the myriad factors impacting upon the process of democratization now underway in post-Saddam Iraq argues that the most critical variable with the potential to disrupt..."
| |
|
Conflict Theory and the War In Iraq, 2002.
This paper examines various theories of conflict resolution as can be applied in the case of the American war on Iraq.
2,516 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at classical theorists such as Karl Marx and Max Weber, as well as modern theorists such as Ralph Dahrendorf, Lewis Coser, Randall Collins and Immanuel Wallerstein. The different views they have of conflict theory are then be applied to the war in Iraq. Once an understanding of conflict theory is established based on how these particular theorists choose to view it, a comparison and contrast of the beliefs that they hold is discussed as well.
From the Paper
"Classical theorists include Karl Marx and Max Weber. Karl Marx is basically the father of conflict theory, and many of the conflict and other social theories around today came from his beliefs and opinions. Marx believed in a materialist view of history, and saw the most important part of a social life as being the work that individuals were doing. This was especially true of work that resulted in the basic necessities such as shelter, clothing, and food. The value of society therefore resulted from human labor, and everything that men and women were doing to create society and shape it actually created the conditions for their very own existence (McClelland, 2000)."
| |
|
Middle East Conflicts, 1999.
Examines Israeli-Arab conflict (focusing on the Palestinian issue & Oslo Peace Accords) & U.S.-Iraq conflict (focusing on 1998 sanctions & arms inspections).
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Examines Israeli-Arab conflict (focusing on the Palestinian issue & Oslo Peace Accords) & U.S.-Iraq conflict (focusing on 1998 sanctions & arms inspections. Discusses the Middle East's role in the Cold War.
From the Paper
"The Middle East has been the scene of constant conflict since the end of World War II, centered on Israel and its Arab neighbors?Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians. Since the late 1970s, however, the Arab-Israeli conflict has shared center stage with the Persian Gulf, beginning with the Iranian hostage crisis and continuing on to the near-renewal of war between the United States and Iraq in 1998. This paper will examine those two conflicts and the attempts to end the discord.
The Middle East served as a superpower playground for four decades, with the U.S. and Soviet Union using money and arms to acquire influence. America served as Israel?s benefactor, while the Russians supplied Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Libya. Defeats in the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War prompted Egypt to abandon the military option and to pursue diplomacy instead. The.."
| |
|
U.S. vs. Iraq: Is Negotiation Possible?, 2003.
An analysis of each side's position in the U.S. - Iraq conflict, with an eye towards resolving the conflict through negotiation.
954 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper applies Fisher and Ury's four principles of negotiation to the U.S. - Iraq conflict. It identifies the issues facing each of the parties, and analyzes why they are unready for negotiations. The paper concludes with the hope that some third party, such as the United Nations, might be able to step in and resolve the crisis. Note: The paper was written while Saddam Hussein was still in power.
From the Paper
"The first step is to identify each party's interests. For the government of the United States, the interests are abundantly clear and have been repeatedly, positively stated: to protect the people and resources of America from a future terrorist attack. Allegations of "secret" interests - needing a new, cheap source of oil or the base desire to take revenge on the Arab world - have been just as abundant but are neither acknowledged by the government nor founded on any evidence, historical or otherwise; so until they are admitted or proven, they only serve as obstacles to negotiation. At this point in time, Iraq's primary interests exist as a response to America's positioning; the Iraqi government would like to survive in its current state and also to strengthen its economic and military situation."
| |
|
The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988, 2003.
Examines causes of conflict between the two countries.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 111.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses alternatives faced by each of the rival powers in the 1980 boundary crisis that led to war, Iraq's decision to resort to military force, the historical roots of Iran-Iraq conflicts, and the scope and nature of war.
From the Paper
"The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 was the longest conventional war between sovereign states in the 20th century. As a war it was grimly retrograde, consisting for the most part of static, positional infantry warfare, not unlike the Western Front..."
| |
|
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, 2006.
Argues that the US was right to invade Iraq in 2003 because Iraq possessed and intended to use weapons of mass destruction.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This political study argues that the American cause for the invasion of Iraq was valid due to the availability of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq before 2003. American military forces invaded Iraq in 2003 due to the fact that Saddam Hussein had created, stored, and was going to attack his neighbors with various missiles and chemical based weapons. In this manner, the evidence supporting the fact that Syria had helped Saddam Hussein move the weapons before the American invasion of 2003 is presented in this study. Although the United Nations had previously thought that there was an absence for cause for the American invasion of 2003 of Iraq, the evidence is growing against these claims.
| |
|
War in Iraq, 2007.
This paper examines various views of conflict theory and applies them to the war in Iraq.
1,700 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer concentrates research efforts on whether there are specific theorists and theories that could be applied to the current Iraq war and perhaps help others to understand it better. The writer first looks at the issue from the point of view that there are theorists, both classical and modern, who have strong views on war. The writer explains that this is largely due to conflict theory, which is that life is largely characterized more by conflict than it is by consensus. Those who uphold this theory have different ways of looking at it and the purpose of this paper is to look at classical theorists such as Karl Marx and Max Weber, as well as modern theorists such as Ralph Dahrendorf and Lewis Coser. The different views they have of conflict theory is then applied to the war in Iraq.
From the Paper
"The United States went to work in Iraq to try to remove Hussein from power, but also to help the Iraqi people understand that this type of treatment is not necessary. There may be people in the United States that are treated this way, but in general the government does not treat the United States citizens in anything like the way Hussein treated his people. Most of the people in Iraq were too afraid to rise up against Hussein, for fear of terrible punishment. Because of this, the United States troops could not get a great deal of help at first, but as the war went on and it began to look as though the United States would win, the Iraqi citizens begin to offer a helping hand. They were beginning to realize that they were finally actually going to be free."
"Another conflict theorist, Max Weber, did not go along with the theories of Karl Marx. He believed that there was more than just a ruling class and a normal class of people. Instead of two classes, he believed that there were four, and that they were determined by power, social status, and class."
| |
|
Iraq War, 2005.
Argues that the real reasons for the war with Iraq had nothing to do with the threat Iraq posed and had everything to do with the control of the vast oil reserves in that country.
2,613 words (approx. 10.5 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This report focuses on showing how the leaders of the United States and other First World nations have blatantly attacked a sovereign nation with the sole purpose of extracting that nation?s oil reserves for the oligarchy and future positioning of the precious resource.
From the Paper
"Some history on the Iraqi nation has shown that they are and have not been financially stable even with all of this natural resource available. Iraq is actually an original member of the Ottoman Empire but was occupied by Britain during World War I. ?In stages over the next dozen years, Iraq attained its independence as a kingdom in 1932. A "republic" was proclaimed in 1958, but in actuality a series of military strongmen have ruled the country since then, the latest was Saddam Hussein.? (Iraq) In the mid 1980?s, the nation of Iraq created for itself a massive financial problem due to its high expenditures to support an eight-year war with Iran. Iraq also suffered mass destruction of their oil export facilities during that war which caused them deplete income and forced them to borrow large amounts of money from the world in an effort to maintain itself. ?Iraq suffered economic losses from the war of at least $100 billion. After hostilities ended in 1988, oil exports gradually increased with the construction of new pipelines and restoration of damaged facilities.? (Iraq)"
| |
|
The U.S. War on Iraq, 2004.
Analysis of U.S. policies toward Iraq, especially with regard to the U.S. war against Iraq.
2,749 words (approx. 11.0 pages), 14 sources, APA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the war on Iraq and considers whether U.S. policy towards Iraq can prevail through an analysis of eight facets of this policy: international trade; weapons of mass destruction; democratization; the war against tyranny vs. the grab for oil; the ?shock and awe? tactics used at the beginning of the war; the U.S. occupation vs. liberation; whether the new government of Iraq will be Iraqi run or whether Iraq will become a puppet state; and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The analysis is performed by means of an in-depth literature review, with relevant statistical support where necessary. It is found that the war on Iraq was founded on false premises and that the current U.S. policy towards Iraq is not sustainable for the Iraqi people nor for the honor of the U.S. government.
Introduction
Methodology and Methods
Literature Review
Results and Findings
Conclusions/Discussion
From the Paper
"The war on Iraq (which some people would argue was an illegal invasion on Iraq, as it happened without regard for international law and also pre-emptively) began almost one year ago, and despite the fact that the U.S. government is trying to persuade its populace that the war is over, by making a show of handing power back to the people of Iraq (although it is not yet known who those people will be, or if those people will agree enough in the meantime to form a democratic governing body), the war is far from over. Day by day, the number of dead and the number of casualties increase in Iraq, with bombings and disagreements amongst rival Iraqi groups, most obviously the different factions of Muslims, the Shi?as and the Sunnis."
| |
|
The Canadian Impact on the Battle of Britain, 2007.
A study of Canadian flyers' contribution to Britain's victory over the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain.
1,140 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper recounts the role that Canadian pilots played in the Battle of Britain, helping the Royal Air Force achieve victory over the Luftwaffe. The paper praises their accomplishments and bravery. It illustrates how the Canadians were a major factor in Britain's victory. Canadians provided the machines, training, and pilots that won the battle for the airspace over Britain. The paper concludes that Canada gave a huge commitment to the Battle of Britain, and that without Canadian warplanes, training, and pilots, the Battle of Britain would not have turned out as an allied victory.
From the Paper
"As part of the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, there was an all-Canadian squadron in the Royal Air Force with a Canadian commanding officer. The squadron had to be made up of only new recruits because none of the other commanders wanted to part with their Canadian fliers. One hundred Canadian pilots fought in the Battle of Britain. They accounted for 130 shot down, 30 planes that were probably shot down, but never confirmed and over 70 enemy aircraft damaged. This a high score for men that were not fighting over their own country, and were kept on constant alert for 5 months.The destruction and damage to the German aircraft kept countless bombs from falling as panicking aircrews dropped their bombs early to lighten their planes escape back over the English Channel. Johnny Kent's spectacular forty-on-one dogfight best demonstrates the bravery of the Canadian pilots. He managed to dodge the attackers and shoot down one fighter before returning to a safe hanger."
| |
|
Approach to Conflict, 2005.
Compares Coser's and Marx's theoretical perspectives on conflict.
1,436 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the differences and the similarities between Karl Marx's and Lewis Coser's theories concerning social conflict. The paper explains how these similarities and differences are underscored by their different views of the relationship between the various segments of society and the nature of societal relationships as a whole. The paper also looks at which theory best explains the present conflict in Iraq and concludes that Marx's theory is best suited for this particular conflict.
From the Paper
"On the one hand, a Marxian analyses of societal conflict views conflict as symptomatic of sociological dysfunction and a sign of bias and error within the nature and structure of the system. Coser on the other hand sees conflict as a necessary and positive factor in the overall process of retaining balance between the components of a society which is essentially in harmony and fundamentally sociologically homogenous. The difference is in emphasis and tenor; while Marx would see contemporary capitalist society in a negative and exploitive light, Coser views society positively and sees conflict as an adjustment mechanism to maintain balance in a system that is essentially functional. This difference becomes obvious in a cursory overview of the Marxian view of society."
| |
|
American Involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2007.
A discussion of America's current role in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2,335 words (approx. 9.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper gives a general account of America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, focusing on the goals and dangers of a US presence in these nations. The author gives a background to the ethnic and religious conflict in Iraq, then describes the current conditions and government structure in Afghanistan. The author emphasizes that Afghanistan's extreme Islamic rule makes it difficult for the US to expect to normalize relations with this troubled nation. It is further stated that Democracy and human rights in Afghanistan, according to the Western concept and understanding, might not be feasible or possible in the short term. The author concludes that the primary purpose of an American presence in Afghanistan is the destruction of al Qaeda.
From the Paper
"Anti-American violence has been increasing (Yaphe 2004). The imminent civil war is not likely to be between the Sunnis and the Shi'a, or between the Arabs and the Kurds. The clashes in many parts of the country were clearly a series of planned and coordinated attacks on US forces and civilians working on the reconstruction plan. The civil war is seen as likelier between religious extremists Sunni and Shi'a. Iraq is made up of 60% Shi'a Arab, 20% Sunni Arab and 20% Kurd. Sunni and Shi'a Arabs stand for Iraqi nationalism and want to maintain the country's political and territorial integrity according to the 1920 San Remo Treaty and the 1932 Treaty of Independence. And the Iraqi Kurds want to be part of Iraq only at the moment and their reluctance towards permanent status is a clear impediment to constitutional and territorial concessions. The second condition, which must be handled, surrounds the fate of transitional governance. Its nature, selection, and who would serve the cabinet posts were the points of dispute between the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqis. The Governing Council apparently preempted UN-US efforts to form the new interim government by choosing a new president, two deputy presidents and a prime minister. Elections would not ensure perfect democratic governance or a pro-American government, but should reflect the consensus of the majority of the Iraqi people. What it took Britain to achieve a truly representative government after 900 years and the United States more than 225 years and a civil war has been made the goal for the Iraqis in only a year. And the third condition brings out the Governing Council's lack of legitimacy and the still undefined nature of political institutions. These issues cannot be resolved soon. The US needs to pass on real and transparent decision-making power on to the Iraqis (Yaphe)."
| |
|
The U.S. Should Not Invade Iraq, 2002.
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, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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.
| |
|
Britain, Europe and America, 2005.
A discussion on whether Britain's future lies with Europe or America.
2,482 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 12 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In an era of rising globalisation and in a divided world under a war against terrorism, to which side of the Atlantic Britain's economic and political future is likely to tend? This paper argues that Britain is likely to remain tied up with America and will rely essentially on the latter to determine its international position, especially if the U.K. does not manage to rehabilitate its credibility in continental Europe as a reliable partner and supporter of close co-operation.
Outline:
Britain's Constant Efforts to Privilege Its "Special Relationship" With the U.S.
The U.K.'s Historical Distinctiveness From the Continent
Political Pragmatism as a Constant in British Politics
The Emphasis on the 'Special Relationship' as the Pillar of U.K.-U.S. Military and Security Cooperation
Britain Facing European Issues of the Euro and the European Treaty: Britain At Crossroads With Europe
Britain's Political Class's Inability to Overcome Schisms on the Question of Europe
Britain Out of "Euro-Land"
The European Treaty and Britain's Vital Choice
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Nevertheless, within the process of decolonisation, the UK was faced with the dismantling of its colonial empire. The association of former dominions within the Commonwealth did not manage to make Britain's trade with former colonies flourish. Moreover, in the context of the Cold War, Britain had to realise its incapacities to intervene militarily in the world without the support and assent of the U.S.: this was the case when the Anglo-French expedition in Suez failed in 1956, making the 'special relationship' with the U.S. more unbalanced. Finally, facing the importance of its relative economic decline, the UK had to take into account the fact that most of its international trade was alimented by and with Europe. Indeed, Jones and Kavanagh recall that already in 1875, the UK's trade with Europe constituted 51% of the national GDP (JONES & KAVANAGH, 1998: 226). "
|
|
|
