| Papers [1-15] of 30 :: [Page 1 of 2] | | Go to page : 1 2 —> | Search results on "PREEMPTIVE WAR": |
|
|
Preemptive War, 2005.
This paper discusses the U.S. foreign police that uses preemptive and unilateral war.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper relates that America has become a preemptive and unilateral military force in the world due to the Bush Administration's foreign policy. The author points out the illogic of attacking a country with no ties to Bin Laden or weapons of mass destruction makes for dangerous foreign policy. The paper stresses that NATO as a real international arbitrator of tyranny seems lost as America appears to be taking on a single mindedness of its own.
From the Paper
"This foreign policy analysis examines the role of preemptive war through United States Foreign policy. Though the normative political reasons for the war in Iraq were caused in response to the attacks of 9/11 on American soil, the reasons for war in the Middle East rely more on oil and American domination. By examining the way that Bush's presidential policy intervened in foreign affairs with military might before 9/11, we can see that preemptive and unilateral war is the new trend in the Bush Administrative policy after 9/11."
| |
|
Preemptive Warfare, 2007.
A review of the arguments for and against the use of preemptive warfare for national security in the United States.
1,364 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the concept of preemptive warfare and the explication of its goals as they are outlined in a September 2002 White House publication entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." The paper describes the arguments for and against preemptive warfare and concludes that most arguments against preemptive warfare are understandable, but unsound in light of the dual threat of rogue states and trans-national terrorism.
From the Paper
"Most arguments against preemptive warfare are understandable but unsound in light of the dual threat of rogue states and trans-national terrorism. The war in Iraq was justified in spite of the faulty intelligence, as it will ultimately weaken the potential of terror networks to use Iraq as a base. Preemptive warfare has not been used indiscriminately, or else the United States would have also struck at targets throughout the world wherever terrorist cells are known to operate. Arguments against preemptive strikes often criticize American hegemony, but American hegemony makes global security possible. More than any other single nation, the United States has the potential to combat the worldwide threat of terrorism and will make the world a safer place."
| |
|
Preemptive Force in Iran, 2004.
A discussion about whether preemptive force should be used in Iran.
1,135 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Should we use preemptive force in Iran or not? This paper compares the use of preemptive force with the present situation of suspected nuclear proliferation in Iran and that of the suspected proliferation of Iraq.
From the Paper
"Iran?s nuclear program began during the era of the Shah, and blossomed into a plan that included the building of 20 nuclear reactors. During the Iran-Iraq conflict, two of these unfinished reactors were bombed in Bushehr, while through the 1979 revolution, the Iranian nuclear program has gone through stops and starts, its current guidelines seem to include the building of 15 power reactors and 2 research facilities. Since 1992, Iran has compiled with IAEA and allowed routine inspections of its facilities and progress."
| |
|
Preemptive Force in Iran, 2004.
An analysis of the use of preemptive force in Iran after the events of September 11, 2001.
2,961 words (approx. 11.8 pages), 13 sources, MLA, $ 87.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the thesis that, though the United States would have to bear the economic repercussions of pursuing another invasion, a preemptive effort in Iran would be in its best interest if it endeavors to rid the world of terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. It explores the reasoning that, though North Korea also possesses nuclear capability, Iran is thought to be more volatile at the moment and capable of launching attacks on the United States and other Western countries due to its ties with other Muslim countries.
From the Paper
"Though it is not clear how far the Iranians have come to produced nuclear warheads, it is known that they have the ability to produce several hundred tons of chemical agents annually. They have the potential to output as much as 2,000 tons of agents till very recently, which includes blister (mustard), choking (cyanidal), and possibly nerve (sarin) agents. It is also known that Iran produces bombs and artillery rounds filled with these agents and perhaps the have deployed chemical missile warheads. Toxins such as anthrax and botulin are thought to be among the chemical interests of Iran too."
| |
|
Questioning the U.S.'s Preemptive Imperative, 2004.
An argument for rethinking the "preemptive strike doctrine" and the duty that the United States Government takes on to protect the world.
3,063 words (approx. 12.3 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Times have changed, and the days of "big-stick politics" need to be reexamined. The U.S.'s "Duty To Prevent" should be replaced with the UN's proposal of "The Responsibility to Protect." With legitimacy, bureaucracy and desirability of such policies in mind, this paper examines the necessity of a reevaluation of the U.S.'s policies in world politics intervention.
From the Paper
"Political scientists and historians alike often refer to the days of 'big-stick politics' and nuclear arms racing as political dynamics of the past, left in the dust after the end of the Cold War. To many, this Hobbesian period marked a barbarous element of politics that is now past, replaced by the optimistic presence of TANs, NGOs, nuclear nonproliferation treaties, and human rights norm dissemination. "
| |
|
The Bush Doctrine and Iraq, 2008.
This paper contends that the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people in order to launch a preemptive war against Iraq.
2,137 words (approx. 8.5 pages), 8 sources, APA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the Bush doctrine of preemptive war and its manifestation in the Iraq War. The paper provides evidence that the Bush Administration provided fraudulent justifications and employed a mass media disinformation campaign in order to gain support for the war in Iraq. The paper highlights the failure of this invasion and emphasizes that this was aggression disguised as self defense.
From the Paper
"Analyzing the Bush doctrine as it relates to the war in Iraq requires examining the covert motivations of the Bush Administration while applying a credibility test to the "evidence" it offered to justify military intervention in Iraq. As Pitt and Ritter (2002) warned, once this "evidence" is dissected and compared to actual conditions in Iraq before the invasion, it is clear that Bush Administration "evidence" was systematically exaggerated, contrived, and concocted, and then peddled through the mass media to build a fraudulent case for war against Iraq."
| |
|
September 11th: A Preemptive and Post-Operative Cover-Up, 2008.
A critical discussion of the conspiracies surrounding 9/11, involving the US government's failure to prevent the attack and its later cover-up of this failure.
2,920 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 86.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the US government's shortcomings on the infamous day of September 11th. It criticizes the government's failure to act on various bits and pieces of intelligence regarding individuals with known associations to the al Qaeda network taking flight lessons, which conspicuously did not include the unit on landing. The paper concludes that there is a wealth of publicly viewable evidence that it was actually the relationship between the White House and various intelligence offices that created the fundamental breakdown in the connection between intelligence gathering and execution of initiative.
From the Paper
"The mysteries at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania remain open-ended, forcing us to conjecture upon the theories raised by the Loose Change documentary that the World Trade Center had been felled by controlled demolition methods. The stunning consistency with which those present at a wide spectrum of locations reported to a series of charged explosions in and around the base and support of the towers indicates that the failure of the government to acknowledge on any level that such explosions had occurred is itself significant enough to demand scrutiny."
| |
|
Just War Theory, 2004.
A look at the ethics and morality of the concept of 'just war', with an emphasis on Iraq.
1,826 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how conflicts and wars have been part of the human civilization since time immemorial and how, throughout the different eons of history, we have accounts of the destructive effects of wars, irrespective of the cause for which they were fought. It discusses how wars are very much a part of the political system of the world and how every religion in the world has had its own maxims and directives used as the standard for either supporting or disapproving of a war. It looks at how, from the Christian perspective, St. Augustine?s ?Just cause theory? is the principle doctrine used for justifying a war. It discusses the philosophy of the ?just war? and ascertains whether or not it was followed in the U.S. war with Iraq.
Outline
Introduction
War and Humanity
Just War Doctrine
War and Ethical Reasoning
Terrorism and Just War
War with Iraq (Preemptive Strike)
Preemptive Attack and Consequences
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Given that wars imply destruction on a large scale and the loss of divinely ordained human life we are faced with the dilemma as to weather or not it is ethical to support it under any circumstances. Certainly we must strive towards peaceful means of settling issues and must avoid war at any cost. Wars that have the motive of national fame, territorial gains and purposes of a non-defensive nature are clearly a breach of ethical and moral code of conduct and should be properly regarded as unjustifiable. But under certain conditions when war is forced upon a nation it stands ethically and morally responsible to defend its people from the onslaught of the attackers."
| |
|
The War in Iraq, 2006.
A historical and political analysis of the war in Iraq.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 10 sources, $ 106.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews how the history of the war in Iraq demonstrates that controversy is inevitable when a government plots to unleash an unjustified preemptive war against a sovereign state, accuses it of being part of a terrorist axis of evil, defies the will of the international community by attacking that sovereign state on the pretext that its weapons of mass destruction are a threat to peace and international stability and then no weapons of mass destruction are found. The paper further discusses how the Bush Administration's Iraq policies have been mired in controversy from the very beginning, for many Americans and much of the international community suspected the Bush Administration of ulterior motives.
From the Paper
| |
|
President Bush?s War on Iraq, 2002.
An overview of America's imminent war on Iraq, illustrating the varying opinions on the necessity of this war.
1,786 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes President Bush's desire to launch a preemptive strike on Iraq. The paper discusses President Bush's belief that the United States should launch a preemptive strike on Iraq, rather than wait for sanctions by the United Nations. The paper outlines the support he has received from some political groups while facing opposition from others. Each side's valid arguments, on why they believe the U.S. should or should not go to war with Iraq, are presented.
From the Paper
"In 1990, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait. The invasion eventually lead to the Gulf War in 1991.The U. N. agreed to lift the sanctions if Iraq would allow international inspectors to certify it had removed its weapons. However, since 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow inspectors into the country until the sanctions are lifted, claiming the weapons no longer exist (Yacoub, 2002). In May 2002, a new Security Council resolution dealing with U. N. sanctions was accepted by Iraq for a period of 6 months. Iraq was unhappy with the oil-for-food deal stating ?these new measures exposed America?s tendency toward harming Iraq (Yacoub, 2002).? The Arab League felt Iraq made a positive step toward having the sanctions lifted."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
War in Iraq, 2007.
An analysis of the events leading up to the United States declaration of war on Iraq.
770 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the war in Iraq. It particularly focuses on the events leading up to the United States invasion of Iraq due to Iraq's continued weapons of mass destruction (WMD) development, ties to terrorism and a need for democracy to succeed the country's former dictatorship as major reasons. The paper argues that the U.S. preemptive strike on Iraq was inevitable and overdue.
From the Paper
"In addition to chemicals, Iraq possessed the capability to put legitimate vaccines and biopesticide plants to use for biological warfare. In 1995, after four years of claiming to be conducting small-scale biological research for defensive use, Iraq admitted to UN inspectors that its production of biological agents was for the purpose of weaponization. The CIA documented thirteen open-air biological weapons tests by Iraq from March 1988 to January 1991. Iraq admitted that its al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility was a biological warfare agent production facility. In 1996, the UN Special Commission on Iraq attempted to render the facility useless; however, the plant regained its functions in 2001 with the excuse of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak. This justification makes little sense given that Iraq could easily attain FMD vaccines through the UN ("Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs")."
| |
|
War on Terrorism, 2003.
Examines the attitudes of Americans after 9/11.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 6 sources, $ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Examines a sample of ethnically diverse college students in November 2002 toward the attack and the U.S. war on terrorism, political Islam, preemptive attacks on Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan, and policies.
From the Paper
"Major changes have taken place in the world since September 11, 2001. As many media analysts, scholars, and government officials have all commented, the terrorist attack on the seemingly invulnerable domestic territory of the United States has led the ..."
| |
|
"Gandhi" and Iraq, 2004.
An analysis of Richard Attenborough's film, "Gandhi", which includes a comparison of the Indian leader's policies and George Bush's attitude towards Iraq.
1,487 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses and analyzes the film, "Gandhi", directed by Richard Attenborough. Specifically, it compares and contrasts the British "imperial power" in India and the United States' preemptive war in Iraq, citing the motives behind each conflict. In addition, it includes the main political arguments for the British policies in India and the Bush administration's policies in Iraq. Nonviolent reform is the best course of action in the world, and war should never be an option for "solving" the world's problems.
From the Paper
"Mahatma Gandhi is probably the world's best known advocate of peaceful protest. Gandhi's actions in India and throughout the world show that superior power can be worn down by non-violent means. Gandhi, born on October 2, 1869 in Porbandor, India, was educated as a lawyer in Great Britain, and knew little of India's problems before he returned to his homeland from South Africa in 1914. His parents were wealthy Hindus, and he gained much of his early feelings about life, peace, and the world from his mother, who strongly influenced him. It was from his first experiences in South Africa that his thoughts and ideals on passive resistance were born. Thrown off a train for being "colored" in a remote town on his way to Pretoria, his first instinct was to leave. A Gandhi biographer writes, "His sensitivity prevailed upon him, eventually, and as the dawn streaked the cold hills, Gandhi's mind had been made up: he headed toward Pretoria. As Louis Fischer pithily puts it, 'the germ of social protest was born'" (Puri 8). Thus, Gandhi quickly learned about prejudice and hatred in South Africa, and he created his lifelong philosophy of peaceful resistance to tyrants and bigots, too."
| |
|
Shifting American Foreign Policy, 2004.
This paper looks at changes in American foreign policy.
1,130 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this essay, American foreign policy is discussed. The writer examines how today, American foreign policy has begun to stray from its proud legacy of balanced diplomacy and legitimate action. The writer discusses that from 1945 through the end of the Cold War, containment and deterrence kept the U.S. out of a "hot" war of global proportions. The writer looks at how today, the doctrine of preemptive war threatens to undermine that prior objective.
From the Paper
"American foreign policy has undergone many a shift in the nearly six decades since the close of World War II. At that time the wake of Hitler's dark and illegitimate aggression against his neighbors and the Jews, had given the world reason for serious pause. The principle of might makes right had been thoroughly borne out and with disastrous results. In the immediate aftermath, the United States, working with Europe and in fact inspiring the Charter of the United Nations, established that in an increasingly dangerous world peace must ... "
|
|
|
