Hussein's Iraq example essay topic

AP Government Reaction Paper: The Invasion of Iraq When it comes to which sets of facts that I think sparked the invasion of Iraq, it would have to be the conclusion that I derived from the Frontline film. Throughout the movie, it's constantly reiterated that the war's most crucial information came from the leader of the INS or Iraqi National Congress. This man's name was Mr. Chalabi. He was a long time exile of Iraq and was highly used to gather the current and best information on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It's been noted that Chalabi was known to visit the U.S.'s intelligence committee once every other month! Although this information was easily accessible, an attack on Iraq wasn't very feasible until the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001.

Legislation then used this as an opportunity to show America that we can wait too long before taking up matters of Terrorist issues. But once this tragic event did occur, the State Department launched the "Future of Iraq" project in 2002. Meanwhile, the Pentagon was hard at work trying to build a war case against Iraq. Long before the 9/11, huge debates were argued of whether or not Saddam Hussein was harboring chemical and biological weapons or agents and producing weapons of mass destruction. That fact was also tied into the reason for liberating the country of Iraq.

Along with rumors that he lacked the expertise to capitalize these weapons, the government increased its urgency to confiscate and destroy them, before Saddam did acquire the personnel needed to deploy and manage his WMDs. As soldiers eventually moved into the city of Baghdad, it was plain and simple to see that Iraq's capital was under ruins and suffering economically due to Saddam Hussein's infamous "Baath Party". And since the INS told soldiers they would be looked upon as heros and liberators by the Iraqis, they did their duties with compassion and concern for innocents unwillingly involved in the war. But unfortunately, what the United States didn't really account for, were the abundant effects that usually follow a postwar country. Probably the largest problem of them all is the extremely high amount of looting that's taking place within the city. But this wasn't just normal looting.

The buildings were completely ransacked down to the electrical wire and many buildings were torched after looting or sometimes just for fun. When coalition forces took down the city, of Baghdad, they discovered that 17 out of the 23 ministries belonging to Hussein and his regime, were destroyed and there was no form of communication. When the rebellious looting began to get out of hand, the American militias began to try to govern and police the country, but they weren't trained for that and were unable to perform an adequate job! So when it comes down to whether or not I think the purpose or cause of the war is just, then I would have to say that it's definitely not! First, let me state the fact that I utterly blast President Bush's remark saying that. ".. if you " re not with us, then you " re against us... ". and the other saying. ".. that anyone who opposes this invasion is a supporter of Saddam Hussein...

". Just because U.S. citizens don't approve of killing innocents and taxes from war, doesn't mean they are traitors or supporters of Saddam and his regime. But aside from the latter, reasoning in why the war was and is unjust, one, has to do with the large spectrum of random reasons given by our government. First, Iraq was said to be a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's military threat to its neighbors was raised; then there was the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendous rule; last, was the question of compliance with UN weapon inspection and compilations of WMDs. All these reasons are nothing but false.

State legislature increased fear in Americans and justified the war by "cherry-picking" evidence collected from various sources, and as noted before, mainly the Iraqi National Congress (INS). Let's take the question of WMDs as an example of this falsification. Bluntly, the proposal collapses due to the nature of the al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center. No weapons were needed beside the occasional, household utility knife - turning everyday products into very, very deadly weapons. Another example is a quote from a spokesman saying "no matter what happens to Saddam Hussein, occupation is coming".

That statement alone told Iraqis and the world that the invasion wasn't about "liberating" Iraqis-the U.S. is going to occupy Iraq even If Saddam Hussein retires-so it obviously is about some other reason or agenda. Thus, proving my point. In retrospect, in looking for the real reasons behind attacking another nation, you must observe who will benefit the most. By invading Iraq, the U.S. puts itself and its declining economy into a position to enormously benefit economically and militarily and has a history of such action.

The conclusion is short and obvious-the United States invasions are not about dethroning a tyrant or freeing an oppressed people. But about meeting the urgent needs of an ailing economy and about multiplying its military and economic advantage. Simple as that.