| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "U S WAR IRAQ": |
|
|
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."
| |
|
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.
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Iraq War and the U.S. Economy, 2005.
Examines the war in Iraq and its effect on the U.S. economy.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 6 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay studies the multiple economic effects of the United States' war on Iraq. It looks at how the war has influenced the value of the dollar, the national deficit, the stock market, fuel costs, and industry, as well as how the U.S. government and the governments of other countries interpret this phenomenon and how they are currently acting on it.
From the Paper
"The timing might be coincidental, or it might not be. Either way, the economy of the United States has reached its lowest depths in years at the same time that its current, conservative, wealthy administration has decided to wage war in the Middle East, specifically on Iraq. With the stock market unsteady, the dollar valued poorly against other international currencies, fuel and energy prices reaching outrageous all-time highs, the national deficit going from balanced to a debt in the billions or trillions, and the defense industry one of the only industries that is booming, it is necessary to look at how this war has affected and effected the U.S. economy."
| |
|
The Iraq War and the U.S. Economy, 2004.
This paper discusses that the Iraq War has created a spiral of bad economic conditions out of which the U.S. will find it very difficult to climb.
1,390 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the war with Iraq is not doing anything good for the U.S. economy because the economy was already in trouble before the war. The author points out that the same sort of common wisdom, which credits World War II with ending the Depression, held that the war with Iraq would make the U.S. economy ?robustly rebound?. The paper explains that it is hard to see how unemployment or the GDP are likely to improve, considering so much of the treasury has already been siphoned off to support tanks and troops in a Middle Eastern desert.
From the Paper
"Another BBC report, however, said the 2003 deficit would actually end up being more like $455 billion. That report also said that Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said the Federal Reserve was cuttings its forecast for U.S. economic growth in 2003 by three-quarters of one percent, to between 2.5 and 2.75 percent. If the economy is growing that slowly, the growth in employment must be equally slow or even nonexistent."
| |
|
Iraq War and the U.S. Economy, 2007.
This paper analyzes the cost of the Iraq war on the U.S. economy.
2,635 words (approx. 10.5 pages), 14 sources, APA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that no aspect of the U.S. economy has remained unchanged during any given war. The author points out that the current Iraq war has positioned itself to possibly be the longest in U.S. history and hence the most expensive. The paper relates that, with more than 1 million U.S. troops in Iraq, the cost of long-term medical care and disability benefits will continue for years after the war. The paper underscores that post-war occupation and reconstruction, an inevitable factor in this conflict adds an even higher cost to the war. The author concludes that, in addition to direct costs, the Iraq war is destabilizing the economy by causing increasing oil prices, uncertainty in the credit market, inflation created by a greater demand of economic goods and services, and an increasing need to pay for the war with borrowed dollars.
From the Paper
"With the increased costs of war comes a hefty interest payment on the national deficit. Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Chairman Sen. Charles E. Schumer, JEC Vice-Chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney , released a new report exposing the hidden costs of the war in Iraq. The Joint Economic Committee report entitled, "War at Any Price? The Total Economic Costs of the War" details the high hidden economic costs of the war in Iraq beyond the direct budgetary appropriations, including interest costs of borrowing these funds, lost investment, long term veteran's health care, and oil market disruptions."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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. 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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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.""
| |
|
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."
|
|
|
