Opeartions Humanities †War And Society Essay

May God bless our country and all who defend her, those were the choke few words of bush-leagues address to the US general ab step forward Operation Iraqi Freedom on the 19th of serve 2003. It efficiency sound simple, save whatever was said before this do a difference to the lives of the Iraqis, Americans and the demesne. What were furnishs intentions? Was it that simple, or was there a deeper averageing why he attacked Iraq?Firstly, chairwoman George scrub said. My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces argon in the early stages of armed forces trading operations to disarm Iraq, to openhanded its people . It king be an honourable judgement saving the knowledge domain from the powerful Iraq and assistanceing the Iraqis. His purpose was for Iraqs Self- Inte relaxation. He treasured to make sure there were no weapons powerful tolerable to endanger the world, he wanted to improve the well- creation of the country and allow the people get relea se from dictatorship. He wanted to defend the world. It was a noble thing to do for the world, but was it only for Iraqs self-centeredness? Could he call for hidden agenda?As the United States and Iraq were compound in the 1991 Gulf War, their relationships were sour. By sending troops over to guiltless its people cleverness coiffeually correspond to literally invade Iraq for strike back from the view point of some Iraqis. hot seat bush-league believed that the Iraqis to be free as they were restricted by their leader here. So if remnant chair bush had achieved the support of the people, Iraq would non look like a country at all without support. In the other light, some of the Iraqis were indeed happy beneath ibn Talal Hussein Hussein, if President Bush sent troops there to break down the country up and turn it upside down, it would not help in any way at all except causing chaos.President Bush also said, And you know that our forces will be coming crime syndicate as soon as their work is done. President Bush should return withdrawn his troops after invading Iraq and found Saddam Hussein. The rest of the job should be left to the pertly government of Iraq. He could have supported the new government by providing arms, money food and not US troops after the change of leader. By doing this, he would be indirectly allowing the new Iraqi government to be independent and this would help them to mature and thus assist Iraq.I believed that Iraqs self-interest did not serve as principle for the invasion of Iraq. It appe atomic number 18d to me that quite of freeing the people, it moody out to be creating more trouble for the country and people.Secondly, Defend the world from grave danger, Bush stated. President Bush started the invasion as an act of self- demurrer. In the past few years, we had conceiven multiples terrorist attacks and the most major one being the destruction of the Twin Towers. After conformity, it was proven that the Al Qaeda ( a terrorist class believed to be responsible for the bombing) was supported by Iraq, and also there were rumours that the Iraqis had Weapons of upsurge Destruction in their control. President Bush wanted to find and kick the bucket the weapons of wad destruction and terrorists. Yes, I agreed that President Bush did not have many choices to choose from. In order to reduce the mishaps of other attack by the terrorists, and maybe the usage of the legendary Weapons of Mass Destruction, he had to send troops to attack Iraq for self-defense.Yes, I believed that we had to eliminate the two subjects, but was it possible? After losing the Gulf War in 1991, the Iraqis were hit firmly and thus might not have the necessary equipments and facilities to build weapons of passel destruction. to a fault, conformations of the weapons should be clear before launching a search of it. The conformation should not be dependable on just what people estimate or said. It should at least be seen. Who knows that maybe the weapon of mass destruction might be the Boeing planes that were characterd to destroy the twin towers, so President Bush should eliminate all the planes instead.Terrorists did not originate from Iraq, they could be found in many parts of the world, so why did President Bush want to eliminate the terrorists in Iraq only? It did not plastered that by eliminating all the terrorists in Iraq would bring more peace to the world. new(prenominal) terror groups might react violently and there might be more destruction. Instead, the US could have increase security and that would act as a psychological and physical barrier against terrorists from attacking the heavily secured areas. This would this deter the terrorists away and less harm would be done to both sides. pr make uption is better than cure, the US should be prepared at all quantify in terms of security and not give any chance to the terrorists.President Bushs argument about self-defense was legitimate to a certain extend, but I believed that his methods used could be changed and a struggle might not be necessary. Internal security should be at a high level before considering attacking Iraq.Thirdly, And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will pick out our sustained commitment, commended President Bush. President Bush wanted to end the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq become a democratic, self- retrieve nation. President Bush was using the argument of moral justice. He sent the US troops there to eliminate the leader and wanted to stop intense tyranny, oppression and sufferings by war, as nothing else might work. President Bush wanted to save the inculpable and was using the interest of altruism.War might be needed here but according to the actions of the US troops, the argument did not seem to stand. As altruism emphasizes the value of defending the innocent, the US troops were not doing so. It was part of war ethics not to harm or kill prisoners of war. From sources on the internet, US troops who were stationed at Abu Ghraib ( a prison where POWs are held), treated the prisoners of war in a really unrespectable manner. And tortured to a certain extend. So, did this mean protecting the innocent prisoners of war? I know it was quite impossible for President Bush to look at this in a micro manner, but he could have at least educated the soldiers that torturing prisoners of war is a crime.Also, he wanted to help Iraq to become a democratic, self-rule nation, I believed he did not have the right to interfere and thus starting signal the invasion. The kind of ideology a country believes in should not be depended by other countries. A country should have the right to rule itself and ultimately benefit its people. Going back to the 20th century, we could clearly see how did the US tried to promote democracy and eliminate communism. US even went on to participate in wars that did not affect it as the US wanted democracy to be the wo rldwide ideology. The US might be fighting the war for a main reason, to promote democracy, and not free the people. President Bush did not free the people but instead tried to lock one ideology in the Iraqi minds. Does that mean freeing the people?In addition, the war might be fought to continue a new ideology from surfacing. Some people believed that a new ideology related to Islam might surface and thus threatening the pick of democracy which originated from United States. Islam is the most widely spread religion in the world. So it would not be difficult to influence the people into accept that there would be a new and better ideology. President Bush might be afraid of the growth of Islam and thus tried to use the argument of moral justice as a puppet.President Bushs argument looked valid at first, but after reviewing what the US troops did, we could see the soldiers did not seem to bother about the war crimes even though President Bush wanted to free the people. Also, he sho uld let the world have their choice of ideology, democracy or something else?Finally, Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your make dod ones .,said President Bush. From this particular sentence, we could see that the Americans are concerned over the safety of the loved ones (US troops). President Bush wanted to defend the world from grave danger, and that meant that he loved the world or else he would not have such a thought. consort to the argument of individuation and expression of love, the only way to show love is to be spontaneous to die for what you love. If President Bush loved the world, he should been in Iraq, fighting the war as he would be willing to die for the world.In addition, if you love someone, you would not want the person to be hurt. By sending so many US troops into Iraq might cause them their lives. So does President Bush love these troops? Also in his speech he said, , with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and legal philosophy and doctors From this, we could see that he actually wanted to prevent the civil defense to act but instead the military to do the job. This might mean that he actually loved the civil defense more as he did not want to trouble them and thus sending the not-so-loved military over to the danger zones.President Bushs argument might not be valid here. As we could see that not everyone was treated equally and this might bring harm or even death to a small group that sacrificed their lives.In conclusion, the arguments that President Bush gave in regards to the Operation Iraqi Freedom were invalid most of the time. Some of the arguments looked as if they were to cover up something else. In addition, the speech he made and the actions carried out were not the same most of the time and actions speak louder than words. Until now, we take over did not know why did he attack Iraqi, but we knew he could have mad e other better choices instead of going for war.http//www.newyorker.com/ fact/content/?040510fa_fact (article on prison)http//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030319-17.html (speech)