President In Iraq example essay topic

The war in Iraq brings up a lot of questions, about the future decisions of President of the United States of America, Mr. George W. Bush. After the terrorist attack on the United States, which shook the whole world, US went to war with Iraq. I believe that this is a war on terrorism, and not an "Oil War", how other like to refer to it. United States want to liberate people in Iraq and bring up the standards of living in that very rich, but at the same time poor country. Before I come to my main topic of this essay, which is "Which Prince should G.W. Bush put in the Middle East?" I would like to talk a little about the history of international behaviors of the United States of America. After the Second World War United States was seeking for new allies.

Well I should not be saying new, but for more allies. Also at that time there was an anti-communism in the US. As Soviet Union moved on across the Europe pushing the Germans back and defeating them. The countries which were left behind Soviet Union put socialistic governments, which brought new and more allies for Russia. But as timed passes United States saw that the best way to bring new allies is by putting democratic government.

Which is United States did in Germany and Japan. But while US were busy with Europe and did not paid attention to the Middle East, Islamic countries were out of control. So now G.W. Bush would like to solve this problem, which brings another problem who is going to be the President in Iraq, if Iraq is going to be a democratic country. In my philosophy class we talked about a very smart philosopher named Socrates. Socrates had different ideas for democracy and different presidents. He talked about who and how should rule the country, for it to be a kind of a utopia.

Socrates tried to make everybody feel good and live even greater, but it did not worked out very nice for him. You probably ask me why? Of course I can tell! His own people killed him. The "presidents" or princes whom Socrates wanted to rule and how they should behave were a little soft. Soft as: too kind, do everything for everybody, not mean, not a good warrior.

Not a good warrior is my opinion. All this brings me to one thought how would this work out in Iraq. There is no way for this kind of president to rule a country like Iraq. The other philosopher is Machiavelli, who also had ideas for democracy, and princes. I like his prince: strong, powerful, mean, and self-reliant. Machiavelli said that obtaining new territory is more difficult than holding onto old kingdoms, as they require a "great good fortune and great resourcefulness" (Machiavelli, 9) Machiavelli had an interesting idea which is the Prince need to master two things in him-self which are, fortuna and virtu.

The prince need to learn how to balance this two, and than and only than he will can become prince. Taking this out of Machiavelli's book The Prince he suggested that "fortune is a lady... if you want to master her... beat and strike here" (Machiavelli, 76) In the other words the ruler has to be in control of fortune, rather than letting her be in control of him. Interesting even with abstract issues as fortune, Machiavelli still stand on his realistic approach and strongly recommends an aggressive attitude. As I said earlier I like Machiavelli's idea better than Socrates. But on the other hand I do not think that any of the Princes or democracy will work in the Middle East. Let's define the democracy, it is unlimited majority rule.

This is true, what also is true that there is no democracy in United States, we live in constitutional republic. I want people to get off the subject about Iraq and democracy and let government decide what is best. I may only say two things "man is more inclined to do evil than to do good" and "I am for any government in Iraq, as long it is not a religious one.".