Essay

Von

Active member
Its long but if anyone could read it and give me some feed back

I remember the day well, almost like

it was last week, March 20, 2003 the day the Coalition of “the willing” lead by

the United States invaded Iraq. I

remember it so well because I had a twenty dollar bet with my friend Jed that Iraq would be

invaded before our spring break was over. Thanks to Saddam Hussein’s

stubbornness and what seemed like an insatiable need for an invasion by

President Bush I won the bet, but now as well as then I would have gladly

coughed up twenty bucks to have kept us out of the quagmire and foreign policy

debacle that is Iraq.

I

have always held the belief that there is no just cause for war except for when

a nation is directly attacked by another nation (i.e.… Pearl

Harbor and WWII). In the case of this Iraq

war not only had Iraq never

directly attacked America,

it didn’t even have the capability to attack us. Even if Iraq did have the

weapons of mass destruction that the administration so earnestly claimed they

had, the missiles that would have been used to deliver the non existent

payloads didn’t even have a long enough range to reach Europe, much less the

United States. Another one of the justifications that had been given was that Iraq

had links to Al-Qaeda, the group that actually had attacked us and still does

pose an imminent threat to our nation’s security. I didn’t think it was true at

the time mostly because of the lack of evidence there was, and as it turns out I

was right not to believe since there was never any link discovered. So this

meant to me that even if all of the justifications that were given before the

war turned out to be true, that it still would have been wrong to attack

because not only had Iraq never attacked us, it had never even been even been

able to pose as a threat against us.

Another

problem that I had with the war when it had just begun was the legality of the

whole thing, under international and United States law. The war was

never authorized by any international governing body, and though there was a

United Nations resolution (1441) that resumed weapons inspection and promised “serious

consequences” if Saddam did not comply, a latter resolution that would have

authorized the use of force was proposed but was never voted on because it

faced a veto from Russia and

France.

 
"disclaimer" i'm not saying i'm for the war or against it i'm just giving you my non biast opinion.......

i think that your paper is well written and goes through many good points. But most of your facts could be argued to be completely wrong. There are many people and books that would say "yes" iraq and sadam did/does have connections with al qaeda. And the itellegance at the time said they had WMD's...and really what would it take to build a couple rockets that could shoot around the world to use them.

i'm just giveing you a diffrent point of view i'm not saying your wrong. I really dont think anyone has the right answers to the war
 
I totally agree with your paper, you had a couple spelling issues, and u accidentaly repeated a word. other than that your paper was concise, and made the point you wanted to make very well

Just to back you up, I saw a PBS program on how us intell new that there never were WMD's in Iraq, and it was all a hoax. The so called rocket building supplies were acctually tubes used for sewer systems, and other miscalalneous (dont know how to spell that word) thing, not warheads.

Good job
 
Back
Top