• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

OPERATION HUMANITIES - War and Society

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Integrated Programme 2004 Integrated Humanities Year 1 Term 3] IH1103: War and Society Assignment 1 Name: Tan She Jeeng Basil Reg No. 04IP0521 Date: 16-9-2004 OPERATION HUMANITIES ESSAY 'May God bless our country and all who defend her,' those were the last few words of Bush's address to the US public about 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' on the 19th of March 2003. It might sound simple, but whatever was said before this made a difference to the lives of the Iraqis, Americans and the world. What were Bush's intentions? Was it that simple, or was there a deeper meaning why he attacked Iraq? Firstly, President George Bush said.' My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people ....' It might be an honourable thought saving the world from the 'powerful' Iraq and helping the Iraqis. His purpose was for Iraq's Self- Interest. He wanted to make sure there were no weapons powerful enough to endanger the world, he wanted to improve the well-being of the country and let the people get free from dictatorship. He wanted to defend the world. It was a noble thing to do for the world, but was it only for Iraq's Self-interest? Could he have hidden agenda? As the United States and Iraq were involved in the 1991 Gulf War, their relationships were sour. ...read more.

Middle

It did not mean that by eliminating all the terrorists in Iraq would bring more peace to the world. Other 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. 'Prevention is better than cure,' the US should be prepared at all times in terms of security and not give any chance to the terrorists. President Bush's argument about self-defense was valid to a certain extend, but I believed that his methods used could be changed and a war 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 require our sustained commitment,' commended President Bush. President Bush wanted to end the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq become a democratic, self-rule nation. President Bush was using the argument of moral justice. He sent the US troops there to eliminate the leader and wanted to stop extreme tyranny, oppression and sufferings by war, as nothing else might work. President Bush wanted to save the innocent and was using the interest of altruism. ...read more.

Conclusion

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 police 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 Bush's 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 still did not know why did he attack Iraqi, but we knew he could have made other better choices instead of going for war. (1726 words} http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact (article on prison) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030319-17.html (speech) ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. History of the United States

    He sent American troops to Lebanon as part of a peacekeeping force but withdrew them after 241 marines were killed in a bomb attack in October 1983. Only in Central America and the Caribbean did the president's actions match his rhetoric.

  2. Discuss the tension and arguments over the justification of the Iraq war.

    weapons, and his history of human rights abuses precisely because our own countries criminal pasts". In a way Andrew is sticking up for Saddam in that line because it is not just Saddam who has abused human rights, America and Britain have also supported these "brutal regimes" when they have been equally as dangerous as the situation in Iraq.

  1. While surfing the channels on TV you might hear a lot of news about ...

    And this has been going on all over. I'm not going to run through the list but it's, if you want to understand it, it's consistent. It's a consistent picture. It's described in words. It's revealed in practice for 20 years. There is no reason not to take it seriously.

  2. Why did President Bush not invade Iraq after he had won so easily in ...

    a country that had a history of dictators.5 Whichever solution was chosen, the fact remained that an American force would have to remain in the country.6 This then raised another question, who would stay and who would be allowed to come home?

  1. The Not So Free.

    The two men continued there walk to the glass briefing room, they walked into the room. Greeted by 3 more people, General Foster a small, grumpy man who knew exactly what he wanted, he was awarded several medals for bravery, in World War 2 when his platoon was ambushed and he went back under fire to save them.

  2. The Prelude to the 1975 War and the Cairo Agreement.

    With the failure of Palestinian and Arab mediation efforts, loyal Fateh units were gradually forced out of their positions in the Bekaa northwards to the Nahr al-Barid and Baddawi refugee camps near Tripoli. By this stage just over 4,000 guerrillas remained loyal to Arafat.

  1. After the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the world ...

    passing of a particular period of post war history, but the end of history as such: that is the end of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western Liberal Democracy as the final form of government.1 Fukuyama argues that liberal democracy is the best socio-political system due to its support to freedom.

  2. Why did Iraq invade Kuwait?

    Operation Desert Storm The U.S. were outnumbered by two to one in terms of fighting troops, and to attack a position that is heavily dug in and barricaded, the U.S. needed to outnumber the Iraqi's by at least five to one, so what they did, was launch an extensive air campaign.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work