The Decision To Go To War With Iraq

President George Bush’s letter to President Saddam Hussein is a convincing segment intended to persuade Hussein to remove his forces from Kuwait before conflict ensues. Some critical readers believe that Bush does not provide a rational argument, but this paper is taking the standpoint that Bush not only is rational, but cogent. President George Bush is able to effectively convey his forceful message to President Saddam Hussein, expressing that Iraq must leave Kuwait through the use of establishing credibility, strength, repetition, and persuasive appeals by explaining that the world will not tolerate war and violence any longer.

President George W. bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq just months after the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States. There is evidence that shows Bush was after Saddam Hussain from day one of his presidency. Paul O’Neill claims that Bush started constructing arrangements for the invasion of Iraq within days of Bush’s inauguration. Bush denied these claims and discredited O’Neill by declaring he was a dissatisfied employee who was dismissed by the White House and that O’Neill had no reliable comprehension of U.S. foreign policy. The Iraqi National Congress argues that soon after Bush’s inauguration, Bush contacted them to discuss how to remove Hussein from power, which confirms O’Neill’s allegations

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

McNamara’s lesson seven belief and seeing are often wrong, that can be applied to the information of “Buying the War,” there was not enough evidence to demonstrate the culpability of Saddam Hussain in relation with the terrorist attacks of 9/11, or that in reality he had or was building weapons of mass destruction. According to Bush and his delegates, they had a source who confirmed that Saddam had in his power aluminum tubes, which were need it to build centrifuge needed to build nuclear weapons. They began to manipulate information through the newspapers and T.V. news to make everyone believed that it was a fact that Saddam was link to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that in fact he had weapons of mass destruction. Also The New York Times was the first newspaper informing to the public about this evidence and a day after Cheney used the same information to convince the people that in fact this fact and Saddam need to be stop. They went to war without following all the protocols of inspections in order to corroborate their speculations. We all believe it, until the damage was done.

When one thinks of Iraq war, the two key players are perceived to be George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. As leaders of the opposing sides, they are also perceived as the decision makers. In the individual and sub group levels of analysis, toppling of the Hussein’s regime in Iraq was a success. This success

Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation.

Bush, asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), multiple Iraqi human rights violations stemming from the WMDs, and the suspected Iraqi support for al-Qa’ida, who had been previously chased out of Afghanistan. After the initial invasion, however, U.S.-led Coalition Forces were unable to locate any significant evidence of WMDs. Back in the U.S., investigative committees subsequently concluded that Iraq possessed no WMDs and did not harbor any connections to terrorist organizations. Moreover, Hussein had been successful at evading capture despite an intensive manhunt, and U.S. forces seemingly were unable to play a domestic security role, further leading to the dissolution of Iraqi security services and ushering in widespread looting and disorder. This highlighted that the invasion of Iraq was not be an easy victory as originally surmised. Since that time, many scholars have focused on the effects of the Iraq War, speculating on the Bush Administration’s motives for the decision. While some within scholarly circles have attributed the invasion of Iraq to groupthink, a theory that has recently become a staple in understanding foreign policy disasters, there is little literature that has been applied to the rationality of the decision to invade and whether groupthink influenced the decision-making process. Therefore, this paper will seek to examine the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq and the clearly failed planning for the occupation of the

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

There is much controversy surrounding the war in Iraq, both in terms of its legality, its practicality and its current course. Within all of these elements there are arguments to be found that suggest that the troops currently in Iraq should indeed come home. The main argument for bringing home the troops is that they shouldn't have been there in the first place, as no weapons of mass destruction were found, and they are now doing virtually nothing to help the situation, and may indeed be worsening it.

withdrawal has made it obvious that the US praised the end of the Iraq War with no authenticity with regards to the effect the war and U.S. occupation had on Iraqi or American culture. Iraq is still a savage and unstable place while the U.S. stays separated over the issues of war and terrorism. Will an airplane have hijack today? Will a building have bombed? What country will the U.S. invade and attempt to democratize next? The contentions for the war in Iraq are just a pawn for political power and a nonchalance for humankind. When will, Americans end accepting destructive political mechanisms to earn votes? Allow this war to be a lesson. Attacking Iraq advanced the illicit practice of government power and democracy, empowered genocide and viciousness and hate among religions, and constrained Americans to acquire an everlasting

The United States has been at war since its creation in 1776. Notably, one of the most crucial wars was the War on Terror. Beginning in March of 2003, this war initially served the purpose of getting rid of the country 's leader Saddam Hussein to prevent his use of suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was best-known as a Middle Eastern ruler with a violent regime. He governed Iraq from 1979 until his capture in 2003when President Bush presumed he was harboring chemical weapons such as synthetic warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. While politics justified invading Iraq, the conflict between the U.S. and Iraq began long before the war. In the post-election leading up to the war, political officials such as George Bush attested repeatedly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a danger to the U.S. and other targets. Bush sold the war to Americans by attesting these cases of threat to Americans openly with supreme certainty. The United States of America should not have invaded Iraq as it allowed the establishment of government power and democracy without evidence under prior resolutions, increased violence, and forced American citizens to inquire significant debt including the injuries and hardships sustained by U.S. soldiers.

The United States and Iraq have been on edge with each other for many years. Under the power of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was considered one of the strongest countries. Saddam was one of the most gruesome, malicious, and aggressive leaders at the time. He would kill innocent people, invade other countries, and attempt to build nuclear weapons. Saddam was looked at as a serious threat to the United States, so actions had to be taken. On March 19, 2003, George Bush declares war on Iraq. The invasion of Iraq lasted from March 20 to May 1. Many people do not agree with what the United States chose to do. So the real question people ask, should the United States have gone to war in Iraq?

The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003-2011, and many gave their lives to see this conflict end. While many supported the war at the beginning, opinions of the war quickly began to change as to whether the war was justifiable. Many who supported the war justified it saying the war routed out terrorist and brought stability to the region, but opponents argued that the war generated more violence and destabilized the area. There are several points for each reason, and both opinions are valid. However, the majority of opinions at the beginning say that going into the Iraq War made no mistakes, but five years later, the public opinion said that going into Iraq was a mistake (Evans, 2009). Then a few more years

In 2003, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell launched an invasion of the nation of Iraq. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the reasons Iraq posed a threat to international security in a speech he gave at the United Nations. Iraq’s nuclear weapons program concerned the Bush administration. Fearing Iraq might use this program to act aggressively in the region, and wanting to secure oil supplies and a friendly regime, the administration pursued a plan of action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (FLS 2016, 43). A constant secure supply of oil stood as a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex thriving in the United States and a friendly regime in such an oil rich country remained an important objective of President Bush. This directly conflicted with the desire of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to remain in power.

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created