| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "U S IRAQ RELATIONS": |
|
|
U.S.-Iraq Relations, 2006.
A look back at U.S.-Iraq relations since the Islamic revolution in Iran.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines U.S.-Iraq relations since the fall of the Shah . The paper explains that relations between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in Iran have been influenced by realpolitik, especially in terms of American foreign policy decisions since 1979. When the friendly government of the Shah of Iran was overthrown and Ayatollah Khomeini established a fundamentalist Islamic republic, the Reagan Administration felt compelled to prevent the spread of radical Islam throughout the Middle East by any means available, and consequently considered it necessary to provide covert military assistance to Saddam Hussein.
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
U.S.-Iraq Foreign Policy, 2003.
An examination of the international relationship between the U.S. and Iraq over the past two decades.
2,802 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the United States foreign policy toward the Middle East has been greatly tested, challenged and even questioned. From the Iran-contra scandal that plagued the Reagan administration even down to the current foreign policy concerning anti-terrorism, it looks at how the nation has been forced to constantly evaluate how much its foreign policy measures up to its ideals of freedom and liberty. It analyzes the relationship with Iraq and how the United States is justified in its current ideologies as it concerns Iraq. It evaluates how its application of that policy not only contradicts the United Nations'(UN) policy, but it also defeats itself, for its application deviates far from its theoretical principles.
Outline
Iraqi History and Foreign Policy
Historical View of U.S. Foreign Policy
Current U.S. Foreign Policy and Its Problems
From the Paper
"The United States also claims that the Iraqi government is still manufacturing and mass-producing weapons of mass destruction; and therefore, it is the United States? duty to stop Iraq from producing such weapons. The problem with this argument is that the conflict regarding Iraq?s alleged production of mass destruction has always been a conflict between the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not between Iraq and the United States. Additionally, before the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was withdrawn from Iraq, it documented the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, forty-eight missiles, six missile launchers, thirty missile warheads, and hundreds of materials that were equipped with the ability to produce chemical weapons (Zunes 2). While early UNSCOM inspections revealed evidence of Iraq producing large amounts of biological agents (to include anthrax), it quickly set up highly technological devices to detect chemical and biological weapons, even after they were dismantled after the December 1998 bombing raids from the Clinton administration. And even if the Iraqi government were to be bold enough to continue to engage in mass production of biological and/or chemical weapons, these weapons would almost certainly be detected by the satellite system put in place by UNSCOM and later destroyed in tactical air strikes."
| |
|
Islamic Critique of the U.S. war against Iraq, 2003.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq is critiqued from an Islamic perspective.
1,840 words (approx. 7.4 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper, the U.S. invasion of Iraq is critiqued from an Islamic perspective. The paper shows how Islam permits defensive war, but not war without provocation.
| |
|
U.S. vs. Iraq: Is Negotiation Possible?, 2003.
An analysis of each side's position in the U.S. - Iraq conflict, with an eye towards resolving the conflict through negotiation.
954 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper applies Fisher and Ury's four principles of negotiation to the U.S. - Iraq conflict. It identifies the issues facing each of the parties, and analyzes why they are unready for negotiations. The paper concludes with the hope that some third party, such as the United Nations, might be able to step in and resolve the crisis. Note: The paper was written while Saddam Hussein was still in power.
From the Paper
"The first step is to identify each party's interests. For the government of the United States, the interests are abundantly clear and have been repeatedly, positively stated: to protect the people and resources of America from a future terrorist attack. Allegations of "secret" interests - needing a new, cheap source of oil or the base desire to take revenge on the Arab world - have been just as abundant but are neither acknowledged by the government nor founded on any evidence, historical or otherwise; so until they are admitted or proven, they only serve as obstacles to negotiation. At this point in time, Iraq's primary interests exist as a response to America's positioning; the Iraqi government would like to survive in its current state and also to strengthen its economic and military situation."
| |
|
Non-Military Effects of the U.S.-Iraq War, 2004.
A look at the archaeological and historical consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
904 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the war waged against Iraq by U.S. forces has resulted in the destruction of more than just military sites. It explains how many of Iraq?s cultural sites, including museums, libraries, and significant ancient sites, have been the victims of destruction.
From the Paper
"An early tourist guide on Iraq, which was printed in 1982 states ?Few countries in the world are as rich in archaeology as Iraq. The Iraq National Museum, with its great, well-organized and carefully labeled collection of archaeological finds is a reflection of this richness (Radio Free Europe, 2003). Today, the museum remains under guard by U.S. military forces to prevent any more looting and pillaging of ancient artifacts. Many statues, paintings and papers have been totally ruined and several of the most precious artifacts are missing."
| |
|
U. S. Invasion of Iraq, 2002.
This paper is a critical analysis of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
1,320 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses and answers the question whether the US attack on Iraq is justifiable or not. The author gives three primary reasons proving that an invasion of Iraq, will be favourable not only to the US nation?s stability, security, and freedom, but also to all the nations in the world. Furthermore, an analysis of the said political issue will be tackled, with relation to two political theories, the Power- Elite (Elitist) Theory and Pluralist Theory.
From the Paper
"The impending and planned attack of the U.S. government against Iraq, particularly on Saddam Hussein and his army, is the most talked about political issue at present. The impending attack against Iraq is the topic of most debates among people; there are various responses and opinions regarding the said issue. One of these responses is the question of whether the US attack against Iraq is justifiable or not. Many arguments whether the attack on Iraq is really necessary, and if the attack will actually result to condition better than the present state of US and Iraq, as well as other nations, particularly those belonging to the Middle East region. This critical analysis paper will discuss and answer the question whether the US attack on Iraq is justifiable or not, and by supporting this stance with details, facts, and information regarding issue."
| |
|
The U.S. War in Iraq, 2007.
A passionate argument against the current U.S. war in Iraq.
809 words (approx. 3.2 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 28.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer reveals that nearly four years after the invasion of Iraq, with nearly 3,000 American casualties and over $380 billion having been spent, no weapons of mass destruction have been found and no evidence of any nuclear program has been found. The writer stresses that we are not any safer now than we were in 2001 after 9/11. The writer strongly contends that this war is wrong, expensive and too many soldiers and innocent civilians have been killed. The writer believes that it is time for Bush to admit that leaving Iraq is the only sensible answer.
From the Paper
"To the hard-core right-wing son of a life-long Republican who waves a flag on the Fourth of July but is thoroughly uninitiated in matters of American foreign policy, there a war going on in Iraq and that's about all that matters. "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein," this person says, parroting President George Bush. "I support the president and our troops," he tells anyone who asks for his view. His car is American made, he hates unions, he despises rap music and he rages against immigrants who come into America with no "green card.""
| |
|
Legality of U.S. Invasion of Iraq, 2004.
An examination of international codes of law in order to determine whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq was legal.
3,102 words (approx. 12.4 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 90.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper points out that there are three underlying concepts that must be assessed in determining whether, under international law, the United States? invasion of Iraq in 2003 was legal or not. The first of these is the United Nations? principle that conflicts should not be resolved unilaterally, but rather with the consensus of that body. The second is the Geneva Conventions principle against targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure not justified by military objectives. The third is the necessity of an individual state to protect itself; that is, the United States.
From the Paper
"Before one even begins to look at what experts in international law believe about the invasion, it is necessary to consider this: both the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions protocols have been used to justify various forms of international actions in the past, so it is not possible, without the incident actually landing in an international tribunal, to definitively say that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was legal or not. All that is possible at the moment is providing the full range of expert opinions regarding the subject. Still, the main focus in determining the legality or illegality of the act must remain the United Nations. Founded in order to prevent foster nations? settling disputes without the need for force, its Charter is the foundation on which relations between sovereign states is governed. In addition, justification for the action is a proper concept to consider: the principles set forth in the United Nations Charter are imprecise, leaving room for proving that a nation?s actions were consistent with the letter and spirit of the articles in question."
| |
|
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.
| |
|
U.S.-Iraq Foreign Policy, 2003.
Examines whether war is the correct solution to the problems in Iraq.
2,852 words (approx. 11.4 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 84.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the history of Iraq's and the US's foreign policies, and the contradictions of the U.S. policy between theory and practice. It discusses how the foreign policy has changed with different government administrations and how the misunderstanding of U.S. foreign policy has often been the cause for conflict between the two countries. The paper focuses on current foreign policy and the need to solve the present crisis.
From the Paper
"Former Secretary of State Madeline K. Albright once said, "The ultimate trust of our foreign policy is how well our actions measure up to our ideals?.Freedom is America?s purpose"(Wittkopf 25). In the past two decades, the United States foreign policy toward the Middle East has been greatly tested, challenged, and even questioned. From the Iran-contra scandal that plagued the Reagan administration even down to the current foreign policy concerning anti-terrorism, this nation has been forced to constantly evaluate how much its foreign policy measures up to its ideals of freedom and liberty. Although the United States has had to constantly evaluate its foreign policy, many Middle Eastern countries?in particular, the nation of Iraq?have not had that responsibility, or at least have not embraced such a task. Given the delicate nature of Iraq?s foreign policy, the United States is justified in its current ideologies as it concerns Iraq; however, its application of that policy not only contradicts the United Nations'(UN) policy, but it also (and even more importantly) defeats itself, for its application deviates far from its theoretical principles."
| |
|
The U.S. in Iraq, 2004.
A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the American occupation of Iraq.
2,383 words (approx. 9.5 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the thesis that because of the immense humanitarian, economic, and political repercussions for both sides, the United States should cease trying to control the sovereign nation of Iraq. It examines how the humanitarian costs are great on both sides, since U.S. soldiers die daily, and also takes into account how the Iraqi people are suffering. It looks at the political damage to the United States and especially Iraq. It shows how the occupation of Iraq by American forces is economically costly and how too much money is being spent on heavy military presence, rather than on social services, both in Iraq and in the United States. It concludes that the American presence in Iraq benefits no one and should be terminated so as to not cause any more damage.
From the Paper
"In an article in the June 4 edition of USA Today, Dave Moniz recounts a series of American troop deaths from ambush: at the time his article was printed, nineteen troops had been killed since the war ended, nine of which occurred in the first week of June. The exponential growth in ambush and attacks on American soldiers shows that a sizable resistance movement is burgeoning in Iraq. Although US officials claim that these ?pockets of resistance? are not organized, the vacuum created by the absence of Saddam Hussein becomes more salient. In fact, even if the resistance movement is unorganized and decentralized now, there is no reason to believe that it will not become more systematic as the US presence becomes less tolerable for the Iraqi people."
| |
|
The U.S, Oil and the Iraq War, 2007.
An examination of America's dependency on oil and its connection to the war in Iraq.
3,040 words (approx. 12.2 pages), 14 sources, APA, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the United States' dependence on oil and how a dependence on foreign sources of oil results in severe political, military, and humanitarian problems like the current crisis in Iraq. The paper explains that the United States currently remains the planet's biggest consumer of petroleum resources and has done little to nothing to reduce its dependence on oil. The paper notes that this in itself creates significant environmental policy problems and practical problems like pollution. The paper looks at how Iraq and its oil reserves provide potential future resources as the world's total supply of petroleum dries up. The paper then discusses the Bush administration and the crisis in Iraq. The writer believes that the United States may have dug itself into a hole - in addition to fomenting more anti-American sentiment throughout the world than existed prior to the invasion, the United States has been responsible for a humanitarian crisis in Iraq that rivals only that of Saddam himself. The writer concludes that invading Iran would obviously prove to be another costly political, economic, and humanitarian error.
From the Paper
"Access to Iraq's oil wells serves a more direct economic function. A member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Iraq is a key to crude oil pricing. Interestingly, OPEC was founded in Baghdad in 1960, proving the centrality of Iraq in the American quest for oil. In the 1970s, OPEC declared an embargo and proceeded to control the production of oil as a means to control its price per barrel. As a result, OPEC has been frankly described as "a cartel with the purpose of maximizing the price of wholesale petroleum to world markets."
| |
|
The U.S, Oil and the Iraq War, 2007.
This paper argues that oil was the primary cause of the US invasion of Iraq.
3,033 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 19 sources, MLA, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explains the United States' interest in the sources of its foreign oil and the need to secure those sources. The paper asserts that the Bush administration is peopled by individuals with personal and financial connections to the oil industry. The paper contends that an administration as oil-dependent as Bush's could not help but want control of Iraq's oil, which was being frustratingly under-produced by the Hussein regime. The paper concludes, therefore, that American addiction to oil has undoubtedly motivated the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
From the Paper
"In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush stated the obvious: "Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." The Bush administration denied that oil had anything to do with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended this official position vehemently, repeatedly telling the press things like, "This has nothing to do with oil in my modest opinion," (Sample 2003). However, three years later no one in the administration could avoid more frankly addressing the oil-related motives in the Iraq war."
|
|
|
