| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "JUSTIFICATION IRAQ WAR": |
|
|
Justification of the Iraq War, 2004.
An analysis of the justification of the war in Iraq.
1,319 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper confesses that so much has already been said about the war in Iraq and the grave error that the United States made by invading Iraq that it seems absurd to even suggest that this war was justified. The paper continues to claim that we must not ignore both sides of the coin. The paper presents a deeper look into some of the reasons Iraq was invaded in order to decide whether the government did the right thing or not.
From the Paper
"David Kay also confirmed that Saddam was a threat to the world because he had blantantly ignored UN regulations on several occasions. The Saddam regime had to be toppled because his dictatorship was becoming more of a liablity for the international community since Saddam simply refsued to abide by the international laws. He was consistently amassing dangerous knowledge about development of sophiticated weapons but refused to report his activities."
| |
|
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 Iraq War, 2004.
A look at the justification behind the U.S.-led war on Iraq.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 12 sources, MLA, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines some of the public explanations the Bush administration offered for why war in Iraq was necessary. Bush's public explanations of his reasons for attacking Iraq without UN backing are discussed, as are the messages regarding U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq that are contained within official policy documents. The reasons behind the U.S. war on Iraq as they emerge from both sources are analyzed, as are possible explanations for the discrepancies in the public and private explanations for the war.
From the Paper
"From this October 7th 2002 speech, then, we see that President Bush, and his administration had several main reasons for attacking Iraq on March 21st 2003: that they viewed Saddam Hussein as ?a grave threat to peace? (Bush, 2002); that the weapons of mass destruction program developed by Saddam Hussein decades earlier had never been stopped; that Saddam Hussein was a ?threat to world peace? (Bush, 2002); that Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and as such, should be removed from power; that evidence was available to suggest that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction program; that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorist groups, which in the wake of 9/11 was a bad thing; that Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda; that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program; and finally, that the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein was necessary on humanitarian grounds, so that the Iraqi economy could be reconstructed, and so that ?institutions of liberty? (Bush, 2002) could be constructed."
| |
|
The Iraq War.
This paper analyzes some statements of President Bush to determine if he misled the public in going to war in Iraq.
1,390 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the war in Iraq has become embroiled in controversy about if the President misled the country in his justifications for the war. The author concludes that, while President did not lie completely about Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, his statements were misleading and served his policy targets; he consistently encouraged such flawed beliefs and perceptions only to bolster support for his plans against Iraq. The paper concludes that the evidence relating to a nuclear weapons program clearly indicated that Saddam or Iraq were no immediate threats to national security, which brings into focus serious concerns about the president's leadership ethics.
Table of Contents
Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda
Nuclear Weapons
From the Paper
"Soon after the September 11 tragedy, the media started linking it with Saddam Hussein. A Time/CNN poll revealed that 78 percent of respondents found Saddam responsible for attacks. Taking this as a clue, President Bush and his administration also tried to establish the link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of 2001 to gain support for his plan to launch military attack against Iraq. In his address to the nation on October 7, 2002, President Bush said: "We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.... We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.""
| |
|
The Iraq War, 2005.
Examines justification and critical arguments about George W. Bush's reasons for invading Iraq.
1,577 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The great majority of critical comment from both scholars and other countries suggest that the United States attacked Iraq precipitously and without exploring all other options first. In addition, there is now credible evidence that the reasons given by Bush and his administration to justify this action do not stand up to close scrutiny. This paper examines the arguments pertaining to President Bush's invasion of Iraq and ultimately argues that the war was not justified.
Paper Outline:
Introduction
Justification
Critics
Skepticism in Other Countries
Conclusion
Bibliography
From the Paper
"While the United Nations had an intensive program of inspection of Iraq's war manufacturing, Iraq employed multiple strategies to thwart UN inspections (Cordesman, p. 175). The need for these inspections was clear, because Iraq had used WMD not only on civilian targets during the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars but on minority groups within its own borders (Cordesman, p. 176). The Bush administration believed, largely because of Iraq's intense efforts to thwart the U.N.'s authority to inspect, that Iraq might have hidden some WMD outside its borders (Kassop, Nancy)."
| |
|
The Aftermath of the War on Iraq, 2004.
Analyzes President Bush's justifications for going to war with Iraq.
2,911 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 86.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes the position that, in light of the aftermath of the post-September 11 war with Iraq, Bush's justifications for going to war were questionable. The paper examines those justifications, as well as the facts and issues surrounding Bush, and the way they were reported by major-market journalists.
From the Paper
"The justifications for the American attack on Iraq in March, 2003, was largely based on the political decisions of President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and others in his administration, that: a) Saddam Hussein was in the process of developing ?weapons of mass destruction? and the United Nations inspectors should not be given more time to search suspected sites in Iraq for them; b) Saddam Hussein was linked to bin Laden?s group of Islamic extremists, or terrorists, and was giving support and/or sanctuary to al Queda; c) Saddam Hussein was in the process of building nuclear weapons; c) attacking Saddam was part of the administration?s ongoing ?war on terrorism.? But those justifications have not stood up well to the test of truth, and the test of time."
| |
|
War in Iraq, 2007.
An argument against the war in Iraq.
3,725 words (approx. 14.9 pages), 14 sources, APA, $ 102.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the reasons behind the war in Iraq and how subsequent developments such as the failure of the U.S. forces to find any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a determined Iraqi insurgency against the U.S. occupation and the Abu Gharib scandal have further put grave doubts on the wisdom and legitimacy of the U.S. action. It argues that the U.S. invasion of Iraq violates the international law and is a war of aggression and also examines the justifications given by the U.S. administration for the war.
Outline:
Background of the War
The United States' Arguments about the Legality of the Iraq War and their Rebuttal
The United Nations' View on the Iraq Invasion
Status of the International Criminal Court
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire as per the UN Resolution # 686, which required Iraq to accept and abide by all previous Security Council resolutions - including Resolution # 678. The cease-fire resolution also authorized UN inspection teams to enter Iraq and ensure that its regime complied with UN arms limitation treaties such as the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). When UN inspectors discovered that Saddam Hussein was in not complying with such treaties, the United Nations passed another resolution (No. 687) imposing economic sanctions that were not to be lifted until Iraq was once again in substantial compliance with all UN arms conventions, including the NPT. (Ibid.) "
| |
|
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."
| |
|
The War Against Iraq, 2006.
This paper discusses the war in Iraq and presents a very anti-war stance.
2,651 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
The Falklands War: Justification and Misperception, 2002.
Examines both the Argeninian position and the British position on the Falklands War.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 12 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The author believes that the war should have never been fought, since it was filled with misperceptions on both sides. Argentina was wrong to think that the British would not respond. The British, meanwhile, were naive in assuming that Argentina would not try to grab the Falklands. At the same time this escalating situation was filled with justification. The Argentines were justified in believing that the British would never go to war over the Falklands. The British, meanwhile, were justified in fighting for the territory. This paper examines these two positions.
| |
|
War: No Justification for the Consequences, 2006.
A discussion regarding war and its consequences.
1,484 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how war has been waged for thousands of years, dating back to ancient civilizations like Greece, Macedonia, Hittites, China, the Three Kingdoms etc. The paper reports that through the years, warfare has evolved. With the invention of gunpowder by the Chinese around 300 - 650 AD, and the introduction of smokeless gunpowder in 1886 by Paul Vieille, war has quickly become a means for countries to extend their borders and influence friends and neighbors alike through strong arm tactics. The paper goes on to discuss how there is never any action without consequences but throughout history, leaders have always been more concerned with the outcome of the conflict than with the consequences of their actions.
Outline:
Introduction
CONGO: Africa's First World War
Middle East: War-A way of Life
Conclusion
From the Paper
"War and the Middle East have had an ongoing love affair for centuries now. Dating back from the Ottoman and Persian Empires to modern day Iraq and the Palestinian territories, conflicts on a grand scale have existed there. Today, the focus is on the Palestinian and Israeli conflict and the devastation caused by both sides. With the lack of a modern day military Palestinian militants have adopted a brand of guerilla warfare, with suicide bombers killing themselves, along with innocent Israeli civilians, in the name of Allah. On the other side you have the Israeli military, arguably the best trained military in the world, conducting military campaigns across the border in hopes of destroying the militant infrastructure. This conflict has been going on for years and there seems to be no end in sight. "
| |
|
The Koran and the Justification for War, 2002.
This paper discusses the Koran, the holy book of the Muslims, that sets forth the basic requirements of Muslim life including spiritual, social and legal codes of conduct, especially those sections that justify war.
2,880 words (approx. 11.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 85.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that there is a wide range of interpretation from the moderate Muslims who emphasize the peaceful character of the religion to those who use Islam to support violence. The Koran supports both types. This paper points out that the Koran contains several passages by which the Muslims have been exhorted to fight the unbelievers. The author points out that the Koran is the source of inspiration for the early Muslims, contributed to the remarkable series of Muslim conquests and continues to be the rallying cry of the present day Islamic militants.
Table of Contents
Early Muslim History
The First Revelation
The Early Battles
The Spoils of War and the Hypocrites
Treaties with ?Pagans? and their Aftermath
Jihad
Causes of the Early Muslim Conquest
Islam?s Message of Unity
Weakness of the Opposition
Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Jihad is an Arabic word that has become internationally known in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To most people ?jihad? means a Muslim holy war that means killing of all non-Muslims, innocent women and children included. The broader meaning of the word ?jihad? is ?struggle.? To the moderate Muslims ?jihad? means the inner struggle that one endures in trying to practice Islam. This point of view by some Muslim scholars propagates that fighting in a war to defend their faith is also called ?jihad? because such a fight is also a ?struggle.? They contend that there are several forms of jihad (struggle) such as the struggle against self-desire, against a tyrant ruler, or even against temptations in life. On the other hand, others?the Islamic militants and opponents of Islam reject the point of view of the moderate Muslims?and believe that ?jihad? is an all-out, no-nonsense, aggressive war. Let us see what the Koran has to say about ?jihad?."
| |
|
War in Iraq, 2004.
Examines the events leading up to the war on Iraq and the reasons provided by the Bush Administration for launching the attack.
776 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
War with Iraq, 2002.
A brief review of the decision making process leading the U.S. to war with Iraq.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 1 source, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines decision-making on Iraq and analyzes related concerns, perspectives, justifications and consequences.
| |
|
Justification, 2005.
A definition of justification from the perspective of the Christian religion.
3,030 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins with a definition of justification, both from the author's point of view and from a scholarly point of view, and then goes on to take a look at the concept of justification as explained by the biblical character, Paul. The paper then describes how one achieves justification and the consequences of justification, as well as how it can be sustained and how it is an ongoing process.
Outline
Definition of Justification
The Basis of Justification
The Means of Justification
The Results of Justification
Permanency
Time Factors
From the Paper
"Some scholars have defined justified by means of translation from the original Hebrew and Greek languages, as the term occurs in the Bible (Agape Press). In Hebrew, "zakah" is translated as being clear, clean or pure. "Tsadeq" is to be just or righteous. In Greek, "dikaioo" is translated as showing a person to be righteous, or to declare righteous, while dikaioma is an ordinance or sentence of acquittal. "Dikaiosis" is a Greek work meaning the act of pronouncing righteous, or again an acquittal. It is interesting to note that none of these terms refer to the act of making a person righteous. Rather, justification as defined above is the act of declaring what is already righteous. Justification then refers to the consequence of Christ's death. Christ's righteousness is used as a substitute for sinful human nature (Romans 4:6-8)."
|
|
|
