Should American Soldiers have Invaded into the Irak War - Essay Example

activities to religiously aggravated 'jihad.' There is currently a self-governing Iraqi regime, and a contract in place to get rid of a considerable number of US military troops from the state. President Bush argued all through the two terms of his administration that the warfare in the country Iraq was a front procession in a war in opposition to global violence and terrorism. This belief was contemplated annually in special foundational addresses, and brought about substantial debate in the U.

S and around the world. This essay will cover up the reasons as to why the American soldiers shouldn’t have invaded into Iraq. At the present it is finally recognized that there were no organic associations between Al Qaeda and Iraq in 2003, nor were artillery or weapons of mass obliteration and destruction ever found. So the question which arises is that should American soldiers have invaded into the Iraq War? A number of people think that the war was a fair and just route, while on the other hand many believe that it was an intended endeavor by the American government to guard their economic wellbeing.

This essay will draw attention to the two aspects of the debate that have been carried out in recent times. Individuals that defended this confrontation, particularly those that admire George .w. Bush state that if Iraq is not calmed down or stabilized, it could turn out to be a ground for terrorist breeding and a secure location for Osama Bin Laden or one more Saddam. The truth remains that the American armed forces that marched into Iraq failed to present the weapons they declared Hussein had his hands on.

If the government of the United States truly planned to get rid of leaders who crush or trample upon the rights of humans or of their nation, Saddam must not have been the single target while at the moment of the attack. In my own opinion, American attack on Iraq was established on economic motives. US administration had the oil in mind which is abundantly found in Iraq, and that was the purpose for execution the attack even without the complete agreement or support of the UN Security Commission.

An attack on Iraq for the intention of "government transformation" would not be an officially authorized war if one considers the international law. As stated by Mohammad Taghi “Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." Random assassinations, use of grenades, dozens of aggressive groups, and an intensified feeling of insecurity and depression troubles Iraq.

The proof of enveloping and relentless chaos is all over the place, from the official figures of mortality to extended approximations of numerical results, from the news of families abandoning hazardous areas by the amount of tens of thousands to the demolishing of governance. As stated by Thomas G. Manken “The lethal fighting is all-pervading, but without an evident front or a visible strategy and for those reasons, among others, it is poorly understood.” Bombing of nationals population is a type of violence and terrorism even more repugnant comparative to low-tech terrorism street killing and bombing of innocents.

Opponents of the attack argued that it lead to the loss of hundreds of Iraqi nationals and military in addition to