This is a matter of serious concern because if the head of the state deliberately tries to mislead the public, it speaks volumes about the president's leadership ethics. If we cannot trust our leaders, who should we turn to in times of genuine crisis? Weren't the president and his administration under a moral and legal obligation to tell us the truth? These are some questions that bother us today as we look back at the events preceding and following the Iraq war.
Reference
Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane, "Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers...
The fact that he was experienced in politics and learnt a lot of lessons from his predecessor's failures played an important role in securing his position. His initial ruling saw ruthless legislations and the eradication of practically all of his potential opponents. Saddam's ruling emphasized that he would not accept any kind of opposition and whoever expressed the slightest desire to contradict him was harshly punished. The few protests
His treatment of civilian casualties is caustically glib, and his support of the war is spurious and irresponsible. His insensitivity is most apparent when he claims of the war, "the people who ought to have been most affected by it, the population of Iraq itself, seemed scarcely to give it their attention," (p. 4). Keegan takes enormous liberties to make such a ludicrous assertion and without any proof. The
What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators (Byrd, 2003)." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves (Byrd, 2003). True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people (Byrd, 2003). In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result
Iraq War-Justification So much has already been said about Iraq War and the grave error that United States made by invading Iraq that it seems absurd to even suggest that this war was justified. But we must not ignore both sides of the coin. We have already discussed the anti-war arguments and have come to believe that serious judgment errors were made when United States, Britain and Australia agreed to launch
" (Campo, PAGE) Such statements remind historians of colonialism, where invaders believed that their society was superior to the culture they were supplanting, while reaping significant financial rewards for doing so. However, the United States has never claimed financial gain. The real criticism of this war is the rush to get there. The United States planned to solve the Iraqi war with force of arms even while the U.N. was
"The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf. 2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily. 3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now