| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "FUTURE IRAQ": |
|
|
The Future of Iraq, 2005.
A criticism of America's invasion of Iraq and the consequences for the political stability of the region.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This six page paper analyzes the short term and long term future of Iraq. The paper presents the view that the invasion of Iraq by Western powers has unleashed religious and sectarian violence that were not present before and that this makes establishing a democracy highly unlikely. The author present the America has right wing and extreme.
From the Paper
"The Future of Iraq: Confronting Reality Analyzing the short-term and long-term future of Iraq requires a realistic assessment of the dire consequences likely to ensue when a Western power governed by arrogant right wing extremists invades and occupies under false pretexts an already brutalized Muslim country that isn't really a country. Iraq's short-term and long-term future is bleak, not only because it is an artificial political entity which has been divided for centuries by seething ethnic, religious, and political conflicts; but because George W. Bush's invasion and occupation has unleashed religious and sectarian violence of nightmarish proportions within Iraq. Model democracies cannot even emerge under such conditions, much less become established and thrive."
| |
|
The Republic of Iraq:The Cradle of Civilization, 2008.
A discussion of the future of the Republic of Iraq.
1,748 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the promising future for the Republic of Iraq. It explains that the newly constituted democratic Iraq may currently be in a state of turmoil, but has a promising future thanks to its valiant citizens and beautiful culture. The paper looks at the geographic beauty of Iraq, as well as its history. The paper then looks at the social and cultural differences throughout Iraq and points out that there is proof that Iraq is a stabilizing country, noting the U.N. report that violence has declined from the summer of 2007 and that the Iraqi Government claims that so far 46,000 refugees have returned to their homes safely. The writer believes that one day the nation of Iraq will come back to normality and its people will lead ordinary lives and the world will truly appreciate America and Iraq's sacrifice to make the world a better place.
From the Paper
"There have been five different designs for the Iraqi flag since its establishment in 1921. The current flag was created in 2008 and is just an interim flag. Apparently, the creation of a flag is not at the top of their concerns right now. The script at the center of the flag means is pronounced Allahu Akbar, which literally means "God is Great". The script is on a bar of white, with a red bar on top and a black bar below ("Iraq"). Iraq's flag is similar to that of Syria's, Yemen's and Egypt's ("The World Fact Book: Iraq")."
| |
|
Illiberal Democracy in Iraq, 2005.
This paper uses the book "The Future of Freedom" by Fareed Zakaria, to examine the future of Iraq's democratization.
1,129 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 0 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
It is important to examine a democracy and determine whether it is transparent and liberal, or whether it is simply an exoskeleton with no filler, and no liberty or equality. This paper focuses on the invasion in Iraq, and uses the arguments of Fareed Zakaria in his book "The Future of Freedom", to determine whether or not the invasion was a worthwhile endeavor.
From the Paper
"In the beginning of his book, Zakaria draws the distinction between liberty and democracy. Unfolding into one of the main themes of the book, this distinction shows that an electoral democracy can lead to a completely illiberal society. Zakaria points out several examples where electoral democracies have become dictatorships, such as Adolph Hitler's election in Germany and the dictatorial rulers elected in places such as Indonesia. He points out that developing countries often develop "sham democracies", which are dictatorships clothed in democratic language, where there is no governmental legitimacy or protection of rights and liberties. The situation in Iraq, however, and the push for the transition to a democracy is a very different one from those cited by Zakaria which were unsuccessful."
| |
|
America's Practice of War, Now and in the Future, 2008.
A review of the United States' past methods of fighting wars and how the trend seems to have changed over time.
1,030 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the history of the methods of combat that the United States has engaged in past wars that they have fought. It describes the methods used in battles prior to the 20th century, during World War I and II, and during the Vietnam War. Finally, the paper discusses the methods that the US uses today in Iraq and Afghanistan and suggests that this method of guerrilla warfare seems to be the trend of the future.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Nature of War in the 21st Century
From the Paper
"Although modern military technology has changed the nature of war as an individual or a small group can coordinate terrorist activities in multiple cities at one time or on the other side of the world, hand-to-hand combat or guerrilla warfare still appears to be the wave of the future. No longer are vast armies clashing on battlefields, as the battlefield is now urban centers and highly populated areas. Along with guerilla warfare, the U.S. must continue to use full-scale firepower to be completely successful in future wars. As stated, however, it appears that guerilla warfare and hand-to-hand combat will be the dominant method of fighting now and in the future. If the U.S. and other countries were to resort to other more aggressive means of war, such as nuclear or atomic bombs, there would likely be no recovering from such overwhelming attacks, and the world would be left devastated and damaged forever."
| |
|
French and Iraq War, 2002.
Explains the attitude of France to the war in Iraq considering modern history, political and commercial interests and the future consequences of that war.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examined The French attitude towards the war effort to disarm Iraq. France remains opposed to the use of force to achieve such goals. Reasons for the French position ranges from political considerations to economic interest. The French economic interests in Iraq were examined, as well as the future consequences of war on such interests.
| |
|
Rethinking Iraq, 2005.
An analysis of the invasion of Iraq as a topic of international affairs and a projected policy based on critical observation for the future.
1,546 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The vast majority of public discourse about Iraq is still framed within the domestic political debate about the efficacy of the operation. However, the faults and opportunities of Operation Iraqi Freedom as a foreign policy analyzed within the international context are equally important, but sorely under-publicized. This paper shows that the 'pottery barn example', "you break it, you own it," is at once an antiquated cliche and a painful truth with respect to the US obligation to Iraq. The paper argues that, with that understanding, the object must then be to salvage the US reputation abroad by often painful means and to establish a quasi-independent Iraqi state.
From the Paper
"Operation Iraqi Freedom has proven to much more difficult than originally estimated. The deliberation about the justification for the invasion can no longer be perceived as a matter of public discourse because the invasion is now a subject of history and the occupation of Iraq is currently the challenge facing the United States (US). Hence, expending effort to continue criticism or support for the operation is futile. The reality of the situation necessitates that a solution be implemented that will suffice the needs of the Iraqi state and establish the strategic significance of the operation."
| |
|
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.
| |
|
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 Invasion of Iraq, 2002.
A justification of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and an analysis of the French and opposing position.
1,034 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 8 sources, APA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the U.S. led invasion of Iraq has invited a lot of controversy about the justification, legality and ethics of a ?pre-emptive? strike against a foreign government. It examines how although the U.S. government has justified it on several grounds, most countries in the rest of the world, notably France remain unconvinced. It looks at how the U.S. (and its coalition partners) justify the invasion of Iraq and compare it to the French position. It also analyzes the impact of the invasion on future international affairs.
Outline
U.S. Justification for the Invasion of Iraq
The Opposing (French) View Point
Analysis of the Two Positions
Tactless Diplomacy and Fear of American Power
The Real Agendas?
Impact of the Invasion on Future International Affairs
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Even after the end of the War in Iraq, the controversy about whether the invasion was justified continues unabated both inside and outside the United States. The reasons for the continuing debate are not hard to find. In the days before the war there had been unprecedented demonstrations all over the world by peace activists against the war. During debate at the United Nations, the French government had threatened to use its veto to defeat a resolution that sanctioned an invasion of Iraq. Most other European countries, except the UK, and including Russia had supported the French position. Gerhard Schroder even won the recent German elections on the basis of his opposition to the Iraq war. Perhaps the only countries of significance that supported the war were Britain and Israel, and even in Britain there was significant opposition to the war among the public."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
U.S. Relations with Iraq Prior to the Invasion of Kuwait, 2002.
A discussion of the economic, military, and political aspects of Iraq-U.S. relationship during the years immediately prior to Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
2,600 words (approx. 10.4 pages), 6 sources, $ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper begins with a brief historical background of Iraqi government and policies. The development of U.S. policy supporting Iraq over Iran, including issues of economic and military aid, policies on the exportation of technology to Iraq and political relations are outlined. Iraq's role in the Arab-Israeli peace process is also discussed as it relates to US policy.
From the Paper
"The emergence of the United States as the foremost Western power and the heir to British imperialism after the Second World War had made it almost inevitable that it would play a major role in the oil-rich Middle East region. Since that time the United States and Iraq have had a tumultuous and complex history, played out in the backdrop of the strategic importance of the Middle East and its vast oil resources, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iran-Iraq dispute. For most Americans, however, the history of their country?s relationship with Iraq started with the Gulf War of 1991, UN sanctions, Saddam?s defiance, periodic bombings, and the recent description of Iraq as part of an ?Axis of Evil? by President Bush. The fact that the US-Iraq relations were not always so hostile-especially in the years immediately prior to Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait in 1990?therefore, comes as a surprise to many. Although a veil of secrecy was kept over these relations at the time, subsequent congressional and media inquiries after the Gulf War have shed considerable light on the nature of these relations - the scandal having come to be known as Iraqgate."
| |
|
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.
| |
|
Should the U.S. Stay in Iraq?, 2006.
A discussion regarding the issue of the U.S. remaining in Iraq.
2,986 words (approx. 11.9 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews various issues relating to the U.S. presence in Iraq and discusses whether the U.S. should remain there. The paper takes a look at various factors that influence this question. The paper concludes by arguing against the continued presence of the U.S. in Iraq.
Outline:
What is the Cost of the War So Far?
Have the Bush Administration's Justifications for the Iraq War Turned out to be Valid?
Have the Bush Administration Facts and Statements Stood the Test of Accuracy?
Facts on World Wide Terror Attacks
Public Opinion: Should the U.S. still be in Iraq?
Latest Public Opinion
Retired Generals' Opinions
Should the U.S. Stay in Iraq? Can the U.S. Win in Iraq?
Should the U.S. Stay in Iraq? What is the Death Toll?
Should the U.S. Stay in Iraq? Conclusion
From the Paper
"Bush has tried to bolster the polling numbers that have show increasing distaste for the Iraq war, but every number that has been published in recent months shows he is failing, because the American people believe the war effort is failing and was perhaps wrongfully launched in the first place. "
"On September 28, 2005, four days after 100,000 protesters marched in Washington, D.C., Bush launched a "counteroffensive," Benedetto writes. Bush said then, "Our strategy is clear in Iraq. We're on the offense. We have a plan to win." And following that, Bush went on to issue 13 more speeches in Iraq, but since the news out of Iraq is so grim, and so many lives are being lost, it's hard for the president to rally support with words the American people have heard again and again."
"The news of continuing deaths cannot be overcome by speeches," said James Thurber, a political science professor at American University in Washington, D.C. Meantime, the Gallop Poll posed this "agree or not agree" statement: "The United States should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own." In March, 2003, only 33% of those polled agreed, and 62% disagreed. In April, 2006, however, three years into the Iraq war, 46% agree with that statement and 51% disagree, the USA Today reports."
| |
|
Ottoman Iraq, 2007.
This paper discusses the Ottoman Empire's rule over Iraq.
2,319 words (approx. 9.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer takes a detailed look at the Ottoman rule in Iraq that began in 1535 and lasted until World War I. The writer notes that during this time Iraq became a central player in Ottoman religious, economic, and political developments, as it was important to Ottoman interests in protecting its lands from the Eastern threats, primarily those of modern day Iran. The writer points out that the end of Ottoman rule over Iraq left a territory that could only be ruled through dictatorships and thus political hardships. Further, the writer maintains that the progression of Ottoman influence in Iraq meant that Iraq was not able to develop as its own political entity, resulting in years of political and religious frustrations that are still manifesting themselves today.
From the Paper
"Iraq came under Ottoman rule in the 16th Century as the Ottoman's brought all the holiest cities of Islam under their domain from the Persians. The conflict over Iraq to the Ottomans was that the Ottoman Empire feared the Persians from East and thus sought to create a Sunni buffer state in opposition to the Shiite Persians of the East. The Ottomans had important territories in what would become modern day Turkey and Syria and Persia posed a direct threat to them. This means that Iraq had a political purpose for the Ottoman Empire and encouraged the Ottomans to take control of the area. Creating a buffer state would not only help with international stability and security, but the political conquest of Iraq would help to cement Ottoman control over Sunni territory and heighten Ottoman influence in the Eastern portion of their Empire while securing their borders from their main Eastern threat. "
| |
|
War with Iraq, 2002.
This paper discusses the risks of a U.S. war with Iraq
950 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In looking at the risks of a U.S. war with Iraq, this paper discusses the increase in the threat to national security, the destabilizatiuon of world peace and the violation of democratic principles. The author draws the conclusion that America would be violating each and every principle that it claims to uphold if it chooses to go to war with Iraq.
Outline
1. An increase in the threat to national security.
a. Mercenary and fundamentalist factions in Afghanistan that once followed U.S. wishes turned against the U.S. post the Gulf War against Iraq, ultimately leading to September 11, 2001.
b. Rise in anti-American sentiment
i. Questions over U.S. rhetoric and double standards such as categorizing Iraq and Iran as belonging to the ?axis of evil,? but continuing to turn a blind eye to terrorist activity in Pakistan within its own borders and in Kashmir.
2. Destabilization of world peace
a. U.S. action against Iraq could lead to further destabilization of the entire Middle East region, as opined by many leading experts.
b. Breakdown of international arms non-proliferation and disarmament efforts since U.S. preemptive action will lend further justification to countries of different ideological leanings to arm themselves in the interests of national self-defense.
3. Violation of democratic principles
a. The right of the people of each country to choose their preferred course of action and if so desired overthrow their own government, which has been exercised time and again in world history
i. Our own struggle to break away from British Imperialism
ii. India?s freedom of struggle against the British using non-violent principles and forms of rebellion.
iii. The increasing fall in U.S. public opinion
b. A war against an already deprived and suffering nation raises questions about humanitarian principles.
4. In conclusion, we will be violating each and every principle that we claim to uphold if we choose to go to war with Iraq.
From the Paper
"I don?t think anyone in the free world doubts that Saddam Hussein is a ?threat? to international peace. However, any military action is likely to be risky and self-defeating at this point in time. To start with, any U.S. action against Iraq and that too, without support from the UN and the international community is likely to endanger and not protect national security. For after all, let?s not forget and let?s face upto the fact that Osama was, in many ways, a creation of the U.S., who brought together a combination of communal factions and mercenaries in Afghanistan during the years of the Cold War, on the platform of anti-communism and ?jehad.? Post the end of the Cold War, however, various interested factions in the Islamic world continued to use Afghanistan and the very same U.S. creations of jehadis to spread Islamic fundamentalism."
|
|
|
