| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "BUSH SPEECH IRAQ WAR": |
|
|
Bush's Speech on the Iraq War, 1992.
A critiques of the President's January 16, 1991 address to the nation announcing the start of war.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 10 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This study will provide a critique of President George Bush's January 16, 1991, televised address to the people of the United States announcing the commencement of the war against Iraq.
The speech was given after five months of sanctions against Iraq after that country invaded Kuwait due to what Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein saw as Kuwait's intransigence in talks over a long-lasting border dispute. Bush in his speech tries to give the impression that his attitude toward Iraq and Hussein had been clear and steady, but in fact U.S. policy toward that nation and its leader had been confused and confusing, and analysts such as Woodward argue that that confusion helped Hussein come to the conclusion to invade Kuwait in the first place. As Woodward writes, "U.S. policy toward Iraq was muddled. Bush..."
| |
|
Comparing the War in Iraq with the Vietnam War, 2006.
This study examines the similarities of United States policy in regards to the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 3 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer maintains that the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war hold very similar foreign policy agendas, which rely on falsified intelligence information to enact pre-emptive war. The writer explains that the lack of presidential action to halt the War in Iraq further reveals the growing problems of war powers that allow nations, such as the United States, to attack smaller countries without reliable proofs of a threat. Further the writer notes that both president Bush and President Johnson invoke similarities in how war is created and enacted through poor intelligence and aggressive policies toward lesser nations.
From the Paper
"In many ways, the instigation of war through fabricated intelligence was seen in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which can also be seen in the false intelligence the United States used to launch a War in Iraq. In this manner, both of these wars offer examples of similar wars in that they were based on false intelligence and were preemptive in design. The historical background to the Vietnam conflict was brought on by the rise in anti-communist campaigns, such as those made by McCarthyism in the 50s."
| |
|
War in Iraq War on Terror, 2007.
A discussion of how the war in Iraq and war on terror became linked as election issues.
2,646 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 13 sources, MLA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
The Iraq War: A War of Lies, 2006.
This paper presents a strong anti-Iraq war stance.
1,258 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper maintains that the Iraq war 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."
| |
|
Iraq War and the U.S. Economy, 2007.
This paper analyzes the cost of the Iraq war on the U.S. economy.
2,635 words (approx. 10.5 pages), 14 sources, APA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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 Iraq war 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 Iraq war 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."
| |
|
Psychological Disorders and the Iraq War, 2007.
This paper discusses the psychological effects of the Iraq war on front line troops.
1,580 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper reveals that the Iraq war 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 Iraq war 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) "
| |
|
The Iraq War, 2005.
This paper evaluates the benefits and pitfalls of the Iraq War.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 5 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that it is difficult to determine whether the Iraq War 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 Iraq War 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."
| |
|
Economic Implications of the Iraq War, 2007.
This paper examines the Iraq war's costs and impact on the United States' economy.
1,649 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the perception that the economic price of the Iraq war 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."
| |
|
Legal Ramifications of the Iraq War, 2005.
A discussion of the legal arguments surrounding the Iraq war, dismissing legitimacy claims.
3,675 words (approx. 14.7 pages), 15 sources, MLA, $ 101.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the Iraq war 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."
| |
|
The Mass Media and the Iraq War, 2003.
Discuses public influence by the mass media on the subject of the Iraq war.
870 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Early in the war between the United States and Iraq, a poll taken showed that 67% of Americans believed that they decided to support the war in Iraq because of a media campaign against Saddam Hussein. This paper shows that during the Iraqi conflict, mass media played a unique role. For the first time in history, American reporters were "embedded" with U.S. troops and could present the war to the American public from the front lines. But was this merely a ploy by the Bush administration to bring its own version of the war to Americans? This paper discusses the role of mass media in the war in Iraq and shows how public support for the war was influenced by media coverage.
From the Paper
"American television tends to stress the symbols of patriotism, reflecting the pro-war sentiment of the government, and, presumably, of American society. But is the mass media shaping this sentiment by showing such images? The American media rarely showed Iraqi civilian casualties, but highlighted U.S. troops' humanitarian assistance to Iraqis. This should make it obvious to all that the media did not present a fair and balanced picture of the war. Media can influence the public as much with what is left out of its coverage as by what is reported."
| |
|
The Iraq War and the U.S. Economy, 2004.
This paper discusses that the Iraq War has created a spiral of bad economic conditions out of which the U.S. will find it very difficult to climb.
1,390 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the war with Iraq is not doing anything good for the U.S. economy because the economy was already in trouble before the war. The author points out that the same sort of common wisdom, which credits World War II with ending the Depression, held that the war with Iraq would make the U.S. economy ?robustly rebound?. The paper explains that it is hard to see how unemployment or the GDP are likely to improve, considering so much of the treasury has already been siphoned off to support tanks and troops in a Middle Eastern desert.
From the Paper
"Another BBC report, however, said the 2003 deficit would actually end up being more like $455 billion. That report also said that Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said the Federal Reserve was cuttings its forecast for U.S. economic growth in 2003 by three-quarters of one percent, to between 2.5 and 2.75 percent. If the economy is growing that slowly, the growth in employment must be equally slow or even nonexistent."
| |
|
The Iraq War: A Comparative Analysis, 2002.
An analysis of various literature on the Iraq war.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This six-page undergraduate paper examines the books, War on Iraq and Behind the Invasion of Iraq, and investigates the debate over whether the war was justified. The author evaluates the objectivity of the American and Arab media, and compares the relative legitimacy of the various governments involved in the Middle East crisis in order to determine the merits of claims that American foreign policy is governed by a ruling elite determined to take control of the Middle East in order to benefit the United States economically.
| |
|
George Bush's Speech at a UN Session, 2006.
A review of George Bush's Speech at the 59th session of the United Nation's General Assembly held in New York City on September 21, 2004.
884 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes a look the speech made by George Bush at the 59th session of the United Nation's General Assembly held in New York City on September 21, 2004. President Bush addressed 80 heads of states and governments at this General Assembly dressed up somberly and smartly in a crisp white shirt and a navy tie with a tailored suit, using this occasion to make his views known.
From the Paper
"President Bush immediately tried to build a rapport with the audience by welcoming them to his country and UN session. He started his speech by applauding people and UN who stand for liberty. His overall approach to starting a speech was effective and good. Right from the start he tried to build a theme of liberty, justice and freedom and later as he moved on, he addressed many issues with this theme in the background. Through out the speech he used gestures and eye contact to emphasize certain points. Everyone was interested in knowing Bush's stance on the violent situation in Iraq so he had a captive audience that measured and listened to each and every word he uttered."
| |
|
The 2003 Iraq War, 2008.
This paper discuses the role of liberal internationalism in the development of the 2003 Iraq War.
1,100 words (approx. 4.4 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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..."
| |
|
'The Secret History of the Iraq War', 2006.
A critical analysis of 'The Secret History of the Iraq War' by Yossef Bodansky.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
|
|
|
