Thursday, March 14, 2013
Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bush Doctrine
WMDs! WMDs! WMDs! And English Prime Minister Tony Blair tells us, "The document discloses that his (Saddam Hussein) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." President Bush tells the nation at West Point in June, 2002 that "...Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants who solemnly sign nonproliferation treaties and then systematically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long... Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge." As we go through the Bush Administration's rationale for the war in Iraq, consider the main elements of the argument. Iraq and Saddam had WMDs and the capability to use them quickly to strike the west. Additionally, we have the right due to the Bush Doctrine's idea that pre-emptive warfare is just. Post a comment on both issues. Did Iraq pose a threat to the U.S. and the world? Is the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare and the creation of friendly democratic government around the world a "just cause" for war? Please post by Tuesday, March 19.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Iraq did pose a threat to the U.S. and the world at that time based on false intelligence. Iraq had previously proved in the war against Kuwait that they have WMD's by not just flaunting them but using them. With this information out there, the U.S. had perfect reason to believe that Iraq still has WMD's and are willing to use them. Bush was right when he he went on the aggressive based on the then believed to be true intelligence. When it comes to the highly destructive weapons that they were believed to have, countries that are threatened don't have much room for error. The threat must be stopped before any damage is done.
ReplyDelete-Ian Borzain
I believe that yes, Iraq did pose as a threat the world including USA. This is because due to Iraqs past with chemical and biological warfare and Saddams very suspicious behavior during inspections, including not allowing them to search one area, but everywhere else, etc. I also believe that stated in the bush doctrine that pre-emptive warfare is a complete justified excuse to go to war. This is because if you go to war with an enemy before they strike you, as long as you have SOLID VERIFIED intel that states that they ARE a threat and ARE dangerous, you may prevent the loss of life by a huge margin. For example if somebody with a gun threatens to shoot civilians, officers have complete reason to take that particular individual down whether lethal or non lethal before the suspect even commits the act. I don't however believe that we have the right to go to war over the creation of a democratic government. We have no right to go into other countries and dictate how they should run the country, who does it, and how they do it. The only time it is justified to over throw a foreign government is if they pose as a threat to their people or fellow allies of the world.
ReplyDeleteBEN GUYETTE
I believe Iraq did pose as a threat towards the world and the United States. While in the end they did not have WMD's it was reasonable to suspect them of having them with Saddam's behavior when Iraq was being suspected. However I believe that WMDs were not the only reason the United States entered Iraq. The US also wanted to reform the Iraq government which was not a just cause for warfare we do not have the right to enter into other countries and reform their government because it would work out in our favor. I believe that our government had the main goal to reform the government of Iraq and they just hoped there would be WMDs to justify their actions and them putting their trust in the wrong people.
ReplyDelete-Wyatt Detonnancourt
I’ll start off by saying Iraq was a war that should have never happened in the first place. The intelligence that Bush got was very misleading and it had a lot of cracks in it that were just looked over. They only saw what they wanted to, people could have spoken up but no one really did and so a war was started that had no real reasons to be started. In this case pre-emptive warfare was not right the “threat” was not really a threat and we didn’t need to go into this war to protect ourselves. I believe that under the right circumstances pre-emptive warfare is ok. The threat needs to be double and triple checked and it needs to be seen that something could be done to harm us. If someone is planning on hurting us you can’t just sit around and wait for them to attack, something should be done. I don’t think we should nuke them but I don’t think we should just sit around and wait for someone to strike we need to defend ourselves.
ReplyDelete-Pamela Whatley
I think that Iraq could have potentially been a threat to the U.S. because in previous wars they had proved they had WMDs but not that they could be seriously used. However the U.S. knew that Iraq did not have the capability of actually getting the WMDs to U.S. soil and they had been ordered to destroy their WMDs. Although they thought that Iraq had WMDs I still strongly believe that the United States motive for going into Iraq was to try and get control of their oil. They simply were hoping that Iraqs WMDs had not been destroyed therefore the strike would be justified, however they had been and in the end they did attack without just cause.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Kennedy
I believe that Iraq wasn't a potential threat. We shouldn't have been in Iraq anyway, not one hijacker was from Iraq. We had misleading evidence saying that they had WMD's, if we are going to risk our soldiers to fight a war that serves no threat to the United States, whats the purpose? If the U.S. is going to use the "just cause" to go to war then, we should atleast have good evidence, not only hearsay. We shouldn't have been in Iraq, because it didn't serve a threat to the United States.
ReplyDelete-Connor Lanoie
In my opinion one of the main components of war is the question “What If?” What if Iraq could launch a missile that reached the United States in 45 minutes? What if Iraq couldn’t launch a missile in the first place let alone in 45 minutes? These were the questions running through the Bush Administration when they needed to decide whether or not Iraq was an actual danger to not just the United States, but the world. Because I believe in doing whatever keeps our nation and its people the safest, I would like to tell myself that the government considered all possible evidence and avenues when deciding whether or not to go to war. However, if I were to think this I would be naïve. It is abundantly clear that rather than taking into account all of the evidence against invading Iraq, the Bush Administration molded the facts into fiction so that they would fit their political agenda: oil, oil, and more oil. Thus, one could connect this lust for oil to the rule of war stating that there are to be no ulterior motives such as “land grab” for a country to go to war. Oil would certainly be considered one of such ulterior motives and is certainly an imperialistic reason for the invasion of a country. Because we are all aware of the reasons why Bush shouldn’t have gone to war we should examine the reasons why he should of…. (Let me know if anyone finds any)
ReplyDeleteAny country that is told to have a certain government and treat its people in a universally approved way is the equivalent to telling an adult what he or she can or cannot watch on television. In other words, it’s not going to happen. Because Bush knew that Iraq wouldn’t role out the red carpet for the American “entre into Iraq”, he needed to conjure up a way to hide his true motives and what better solution than to tell Iraq and the world that we all need Democracies. Hidden in the sarcasm are the reasons why the creation of a friendly Democratic government around the world is not even remotely a just cause for warfare.
Despite the bit about worldwide democracy the idea of pre-emptive warfare isn’t such a bad idea if used by the right people, for the right reasons, and a t the right time. I believe that until such people who can utilize the pre-emptive strike in a proper manner are in power pre-emptive warfare is not an option. Otherwise, let the people decide whether or not their military attacking a country before it attacks us is a good idea based on whatever the circumstances may be. For me personally, I feel as if the pre-emptive strike can be the difference between the loss of our people and the loss of theirs (whoever they may be).
---Nick Palumbo
I personally believe that Iraq did not pose a threat and we should not have gone to war there in the first place. It bothers me that we attempt to try and start wars when countries such as Iraq and Iran are believed to have the capability of building nuclear weapons. The way that I see things are that the U.S. wont start wars with counties that have nuclear weapons such as North Korea so, it makes sense to me that countries across the world want nuclear weapons. It provides a safety from countries such as America attempting to invade them.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with all aspects of the bush doctrine. I believe that preemptive warfare is always wrong and should never be used as an excuse for attacking or declaring war on another country. Also the idea of creating a democratic government in the countries we invade is as dumb an idea as you could ever make. This is mainly due to how you cannot force democracy on people or even a whole country. Thats my opinion on the bush doctrine and I hope no future president ever follows it's ideas.
-Ryan Brehio
Although I am in no way a supporter of George Bush he was correct when he said "If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long." I do think that Iraq did pose a threat but I also think that it was not a big enough threat to go to war. I believe that the main reason we went to war was to secure Iraq's petroleum infrastructure not because they were a threat to us. The evidence that we had that they had WMD's was misleading. I think that we should have gotten more accurate evidence that there was WMD's before going in because it is important to be sure there is a threat, not just that their might be a threat.
ReplyDeleteGilisa Paternina
I believe that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US. The evidence provided by the Bush administration was completely illegitimate or was no properly investigated meaning that all the supposed WMD's that Iraq had didn't exist which mean they couldn't be a threat to us. If anything the US was more of a threat to Iraq. By undermining Saddam the entire country was destabilized.
ReplyDeleteI also disgree with the Bush Doctrine on the basis of invading countries for a democratic regime change but don't disagree with it when it comes to preemptive warfare. Invading a country for a democratic regime change, while it sounds good, is not. In Iraq the US had no right to topple Saddam. Although he did many atrocious things he still should have remained in power. This is because of he situation that Saddam was in. Iraq is in one of the most turbulent areas in the world and the only way to maintain stability is with an Iron Fist. Also Saddam while a fearmonger was the only thing keeping Iraq stable. When Saddam was gone religious fighting broke out along with looting and anarchy. This could have been avoided if Saddam was kept in power. On the grounds of preemptive warfare in the Bush Doctrine I believe that it is justified only if there is a large enough amount of credible intelliegence to prove that something is a threat. In the case of Iraq preemptive warfare is not justified but it can be.
-Colin Krohto
Iraq showed that there was a possibility that they were not just a threat to the U.S. but the rest of the world. They definitely demonstrated their WMD's against other places near there such as Kuwait which was devastated by Iraq. If Iraq could do it once then they could do it again so even though we weren't able to find out if they could, it seems pretty obvious that the U.S. would be in much terror from what might have been. From what I have learned in this class is that a "just cause" of war definitely doesn't include anything like pre-emptive warfare. A Just cause of war seems more likely to be when you are attacked first and there is no way for a peaceful settlement which is when the warfare starts. In this case we are talking about weapons that are banned that could end all life in the U.S. In my eyes it wouldn't be acceptable for us just to wait for the same death Iraq showed towards the people of Kuwait. Iraq being a country that showed us nothing and only limiting the places we could search is another reason that it was right that we attacked first, since we were under such a threat as WMD's.
ReplyDelete-Jesus Garcia
Leaders that are hypocritical parasites are never associated with the free world. No, these types of leaders can only possibly stem from communist countries like China or North Korea. Never is America thought to be led by insincere leeches. This description however, is not only far from what is false, but a near perfect description of the apes that conducted our government. When American forces invaded Iraq in 2003, it was an immoral, unjustified action caused not only by the treacherous monsters that run our government, but also by the failure of the American people to abide by our principles and stand in the way of injustice. In all fairness, the public was misled by the tyrants of Washington through false/manipulated intelligence. The litter that was the Bush Doctrine, fathered by George W. Bush and his accompanying serpents, was used as a petty excuse to slither into Iraq and not only demolish what little stability it had, but to also rob one of its only lifelines, oil. The Doctrine that was spit out of the Bush Administration is a complete and utter disgrace to the American reputation.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bush and his administration try to justify our invasion by saying that, “We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants who solemnly sign nonproliferation treaties and then systematically break them,” it is just another demonstration of American hypocrisy. We cannot possibly scrutinize others for breaching the terms of a treaty when we ourselves have done it on numerous occasions. We cannot possibly wag our finger at a nation for doing something while simultaneously practicing the very same actions. If we are to say that nations who infringe on treaties cannot be trusted, then we may be subliminally communicating to the world that we cannot be trusted as well.
Just as counterintuitive, Bush states that, “the war on terror will not be won on the defensive.” Saying this means that we must weed out the terrorists and strike them down. We must track them, search for them, and follow them wherever they may loom and eliminate the. None were in Iraq when we invaded. It is interesting to note that Captain Kearney says that we would wait for “them” to come to us, and then we shoot. Does this qualify as offensive? Waiting to be attacked and then striking back? This strategy not only in no way offensive, but it would also cause terrorist groups to flock to Iraq. Terrorists that would claim American lives as well as Iraqi ones. Is this the “liberation and justice” that Bush promised to the Iraqi people?
Yet another paradox that the Bush Administration tried to instill was forced democracy. Democracy is a child of the people. It is born by the people who have decided that their government must be run by the citizens, for the citizens. Democracy cannot be enforced upon the Iraqi people like a bastard child. It must be naturally conceived and raised until it can claim its title as the government the people desire. Anything less, and democracy becomes the hated mutant, unnaturally placed by the oppressive Americans for their own personal gain.
The Bush Administration made itself and the country of America seem as though we are bloodthirsty oppressors. They are the leeches that cling on to Iraq, sucking the black blood that runs through the country and keeps it alive. What they did and what we let them do as a nation was truly evil. America let its leaders embark on an over a decade long war that has cost the American people over three trillion dollars. How this war is planned to be paid off is through the oil that may be gained from this crusade. Iraq is suffering and will continue to suffer for our own personal gain, and it is much our fault as it is the government’s. Credit must be given where credit is due however. The tyrants of Washington were truly masters of deceit and treachery. Calling them anything less would not do them justice, for even they were able to deceive Yip The Great.
Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States. We should not have been there in the first place. The intelligence that we had was not valid and there was not enough evidence to show that we should have been in there fighting them. For the US to use the just cause theory to go to war, the evidence should have been better verified instead of just what some other country may have said. The united states should not have been in Iraq, they did not pose a threat.
ReplyDelete