U.S. War on Terror-Iraq Essay Example for Free

U.S. War on Terror-Iraq Essay The U. S in the aftermath of terrorist incidents on September 11 in the mainland America embarked upon an anti-terrorist campaign in the world. In a following state of the union address by the president of the U. S. , Iraq was declared to comprise the â€Å"axis of evil†. President George W. Bush affirmed that the Iraqi regime exhibited its grave aggression toward United States, and hankered after to build up â€Å"weapons of mass destruction† for more than a decade. Bush further illustrated the Iraqi government as a grave and growing danger as it might employ â€Å"weapons of mass destruction† to blackmail or attack the US. He further showed a connection between Saddam Hussein’s government and terrorist groups. Bush declared that the United States of America will not permit the worlds most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the worlds most dangerous weapons. (U. S. Executive Office. 2002) Vice President Dick Cheney re-emaphzised the threat from Iraq and stated that we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. He also declared that many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon†¦containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction and are prepared to share them with terrorists who intend to inflict catastrophic casualties on the United States. † Earnest preparations were set in motion to launch a military invasion against Iraq. An attempt at cobbling coalition of countries on the pattern of 1990 antedating the gulf-war 1 fell miserably short of its intended objectives, as U. K alone notably contributed towards the war plan, in addition to mere token contributions from Australia. As military mien and might were accumulated around Iraq with fanfare fro the purpose of war, a resolution was presented to the united nations security council as a product of after thought on the part of the U. S. and on the promptings of the British prime minister . The underlying in tent in the resolution was the conferment of legitimacy upon the anticipated invasion of Iraq. The UN resolution 1441 passed unanimously on November 8, 2002 sanctioned U. N. inspection teams to bring about disarmament of Iraq. (U. N. Security Council, 2002) The use of military force was not envisaged by the majority of the Security Council members to affect disarmament. The US and its allies moved another resolution in the council to sanction use of military force against Iraq. However, due to the inability to secure required number of votes for its passage in the SC, the resolution was withdrawn by the Y. S. The eagerness to rationalize its war efforts against Iraq led the U. S. to project shifting rational of war from disarmament of Iraq suspected to be in possession of the weapons of mass destruction, to the regime change, through bringing about political liberation and introduction of democracy in Iraq, to some others. Finally, the real motives underlying the military invasion of Iraq could not remain without coming to surface. The issue of the justification of Iraq war, once surveyed with the advantage of retrospection, imparts invaluable lessons. The doctrine of preemption contained in a document entitled The U. S. National Security Strategy was announced in September last, the epoch making events leading to the war against Iraq are the subject matter of the ensuing discourse. An astounding paradox, the war though as a mean to purge Iraq of its presumed stock of the WMD is proclaimed part of the U. S anti-terrorism campaign in the world, however, any established definition of terrorism is not yet recognized by the U. N. the substantive ramifications of such an omission are to be realized. The Iraq situation in the aftermath of war and U. S. military occupation bears an historic significance for the Islamic civilization. The outcome in the Iraq conflict, as in such instances of military occupation gathered from history, of course, will depend upon the response the Muslims are able to forge over a period against the extraordinary challenge that has come to emerge. The chief UN weapon inspector, Dr. Blix told the UNSC in a crucial report that no WMD were discovered in Iraq by the UN team. At the same time, the report maintained that Saddam Hussein had not accounted for any banned weapons. Dr. al-Baradei reported that inspectors found no evidence that Iraq had restated its nuclear weapons program. No Iraqi cooperation was needed for the inspection work, because in nuclear verification, particularly with an intrusive verification system, the presence ore absence of a nuclear weapons program in a state could be assessed even without the full cooperation of the inspected state. The U. S foreign secretary at that time Mr. Collin Powell addressed the UN SC and sought to make a case against Iraq of ‘denial and deception’. (U. S. Department of State, 2003) The satellite pictures from Iraq of the apparent evidences for the manufacture of rockets exceeding UN permitted dimensions an ranges , and for rocket launchers exceeding the size needed for limited range missiles, were beamed at the screens in the UNSC and around the world. Artistic renderings of the mobile laboratories for producing bio and chemical weapons were presented and a claim , on the basis of information gathered from defectors , was made that there were at least eighteen such laboratories in the possession of Iraq. Mr. Powell recounted that Iraq had failed to account for Anthrax and other lethal bio and chemical weapons, which according to the UN inspectors report in the 1998, Iraq was suspected of owning. Included in the evidence among the aerial photographs of the buildings was an â€Å"organizational chart† of supposed al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, a couple of tare recordings that lent themselves to varied interpretations and a large number of undated reports by unnamed Iraqi defectors. Further, in the report, the secretary made a case that Iraq had repeatedly tried to import sophisticated parts that could be used in a gas centrifuge to produce enriched uranium. In particular, that Iraq had sought â€Å"high-specification aluminum tubes from eleven different countries†. Mr. Powell admitted the fact that â€Å"there is controversy about what these tubes are for â€Å". Iraq explained that the tubes were for missiles, and that the UN experts agreed that the tubes were consistent with Iraq’s view point and â€Å"not directly suitable† for a centrifuge. According to Mr. Powell the debate missed the point: Iraq had no business buying the tubes for any purpose, for those are banned. The early reviews of Mr. Powell’s performance were mixed. In the U. S. audience he changed so many minds that half of all Americans were than ready to go to war immediately, compared with only a third the previous month, according to the Newsweek poll . In contrast among the member states of the UN, Mr. Powell’s case for a US –led war on Baghdad as a â€Å"smoking mirrors† and nothing to do with reality, and plain wrong. He described the presentation by Mr. Powell before the UNSC as a compelling case and sound argument only for the unknowing. Some critics suggested the entertainment of skepticism concerning Mr. Powell’s report. Previous instance s of the use of disinformation by the US government to drum up support for war was cited. These included from relatively subtle measures like the doctoring of satellite photos to convince the Saudi government that Iraq was amassing troops for an invasion of Saudi Arabia in 1990, to incredibly crude ones like the continuing claims by the U. S. officials, including Mr. Bush, that â€Å"Iraq† expelled weapons inspectors in 1998. However as covered in the press at the time, the inspectors were withdrawn at the behest of the U. S. The doctrine of preemption was declared in a document, â€Å"the National Security Strategy of the United States† on September 20 during an address by the president at the WestPoint. A law was also passed ,The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the Patriot Act, is an Act of Congress that United States President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The acronym of USA PATRIOT ACT stands for â€Å"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. This act broadens the authority of US law enforcement agencies to a large extent for the sake of fighting terrorism on the soil of United States and abroad. The most important provisions of the Act includes that the law enforcement agencies has been made immensely powerful and they have been allowed to search telephone, e-mail accounts, medical records, financial records and many other things, restrictions and limitations have also been loosed on intelligence gathering related to other countries within the United State . the authority of the Secretary of Treasury has been increased greatly and now he can monitor and control the financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities. The â€Å"Patriot law† also enhances the discretion of law enforcement agencies and immigration authorities so that they can now detain and deport immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts with more ease and less restrictions. This act also sheds its light on the definition of terrorism and domestic terrorism is included in its domain. The significance of the ‘doctrine of preemption’ resides in the fact that it represented a remarkable departure from the historical policy of the U. S. as followed by successive American presidents. (ALCU) Although Patriot act provides surveillance agencies with great powers to search and eavesdrop to intercept and counter any terrorist activity but critics of the Act has illustrated that Patriot Act forfeited legal and constitutional shields of liberty and privacy for American citizen. For example, Susan Herman views that Patriot Act is against the spirit of cherished American ideals of freedom and democracy. She described that Patriot act lack a balance between rights of the American citizens and the President’s initiative to curb the terrorist activities. She says that Presidential powers in Patriot act are imperative for the protection of American citizen’s from future terrorists attacks but he is also responsible to â€Å"preserve, protect and defend the constitution† that safeguards the privacy and individuals rights of the people. (Herman, 2002) The policy of deterrence and containment has been pursued by the U. S to prevent wars. The knowledgeable persons view this enunciation of the recent national security policy, to be a paradoxical approach in the historical perspective, for it envisages resorting to war in order to prevent it. The justification of the doctrine is perceived by its source to reside in the logic that, â€Å"given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the U. S. can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture †¦we cannot let our enemies strike first. As a matter of common sense and self defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. † The newly conceived U. S. strategy is fraught with serious consequences , due to its unilateral appropriations of the prerogative to impose its authoritative order upon other nations in the world by the U. S. it makes no pretensions of referring to any legal or moral framework that is subscribed to in the world. the sovereignty of states , guaranteed in the UN charter as sacrosanct and forming one of the fundamental principles of international relations since the Treaty of Westphalia 1648, has been exposed to a hazard unknown in the world before. The UN sanctioned inspection process was proceeding satisfactorily as acknowledged by other veto-using members of the council. However, the U. S. and its allies presented a resolution in the SC to require its authorization for the immediate use of force against Iraq to bring about disarmament. As become evident that the proposed resolutions would not come to muster the requisite number of votes in the council for its passage, and there loomed the inevitable threat of vetoes from France and Russia, the US deemed it convenient to withdraw the proposed resolution. The new doctrine, tested on the grounds of its initial application in Iraq, is a counter to international law and a subversion to the collective security system of the UN . the essential element of the collective security system of the UN is the prohibition of arbitrary use of force under all circumstances, it is the prerogative of the UNSC to determine in each instance the nature of the conflict, the threat arising from it, and the measure to be adopted against an aggressor. The doctrine of preemption is a usurpation of the UNSC’s role as an international collective peace-keeping organization. The outcome of war in Iraq-the removal of Saddam Hussain , regime change and occupation of Iraq – is by no means a validation of the doctrine. As a matter of fact , abysmal failure to establish the discovery of WMD and the US not becoming a force of liberation for the people of Iraq , who are in agitation to restore their independence from foreign occupation, such aftermath of war on Iraq provides a censure, and not the justification, for the doctrine. The international commission of jurists (ICJ), in response to the ultimatum issued by Mr. Bush warning Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within forty eight hours, declared that invasion of Iraq would be illegal and tantamount to a war of aggression. The Geneva-based non-governmental body, comprised of sixty eminent jurists, expressed its deep dismay for the reason that,† a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq which amounts to a war of aggression. † The ICJ insisted that without SC authorization, no country could use force against another country except in self-defense against an armed attack. It emphasized that â€Å"there was no other plausible legal basis for the invasion of Iraq than a UNSC resolution that sanctioned it. † A critical analysis of the facts and events related to the US war on Iraq harbors a wealth of lessons, which should be the subject matter of another discourse. In the aftermath of the terrorist incident s of September 11, the US has demonstrated a gradual yet persistent shift away from internationalism. The abandonment of the Kyoto protocol –the treaty establishing the international criminal court –the repeal of Anti-Ballistic missile Treaty, non-compliance with the UN Resolution 1441, launching of the invasion of Iraq without the sanction of the UNSC, the assassination attempt at Saddam-in strict legal sense and before the formal declaration of war- and the disinclination from the involvement of the UN in the administration of post-war Iraq, are the instances of the US international conduct, among others. The rational of war against Iraq, after undergoing changes as adjustments for the purpose of plausibility, has finally emerged to be the control of rich oil reserves in Iraq, reconstruction, contracts for the US construction conglomerates, and far wider strategic aims in the middle-east. Such aims include the building of military basis in Iraq and conversion of the middle-east into a â€Å"free trade zone,† as announced by the US president. To sum up, despite controversies related to the Iraq war, what is needed for Iraq both by U.S government and Iraqi nations is, as enunciated in the national security strategy of the US as well, to provide for the common defense. It is anticipated that with vision and valor the present and historic crises the world of crescent will be cope with by overcoming implicit dangers, and harnessing opportunities. Noteworthy it is, the word crisis in an ancient oriental language is comprised of two meanings at once, the danger and opportunity.

No Child Left Behind Creates More Problems for Students than it does So

The No Child Left Behind Act was designed by President George W. Bush in 2001. Although this act seems to be cutting edge and has generated enormous amounts of both controversy and support, this is not the first time American Education has seen such an attempt to improve education. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the purpose of No Child Left Behind is to improve student achievement and change the culture of America's schools. ?The NCLB Act of 2001, the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is a potent blend of new requirements, incentives and resources and it poses significant challenges for states? (?Education Commission of the States,? 2003). No Child Left Behind laws require that every state must develop and implement an accountability system; ?Holding schools accountable for the performance of all students is the cornerstone of the NCLB Act? (2003). There are four main principles to the new plan; Greater accountability for student achievement, greate r flexibility for states, districts and schools in the use of federal funds (more specifically Title I funds) and more choices for parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been demonstrated and proven to work. However and even still, No Child Left Behind creates more problems for students than it does solutions because of accountability laws. More specifically, students in special education are held to the same standards that students in regular education are held to. Under the requirements for No Child Left Behind Act every school must have highly qualified teachers and must meet adequate yearly progress. Additionally, each school must report attendance, test scores and other statistics p... ... www.NoChildLeftBehind.com Pascopella, A. (2005) Technology cuts run deep. Retrieved 2005, March 11 Inside the Law.com: Analyzing, Explaining and Debating NCLB. Williams, Patrick (2004, 12 January). No Child Left Behind Legislation is a Bad Law. Independent Record. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from http://www.helenair. com/articles/2004/01/21/opinions/a04012104_03.txt Wright, Pamela, Wright Peter (2003). No Child Left Behind. Harbor House Law Press. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1892320126/qid=1109887307/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_1/102-1349734-1050505 v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Wycliff, Donald (2003, 2 October) Skirting the No Child Left Behind. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 28, 2005 from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news /columnists/chi-0310020171oct02,0,6652365.column

Level Of Crime Is Increasing And Crimes Are Becoming Violent

Nowadays, it is observed that the level of crime is increasing and is more violent as compared many years ago. There are various factors that lead to this problem and some of them will be discussed and its solution will also be tackled. Nowadays, it is observed that the number of criminality is rising in several countries and is more violent. There are various factors why this is happening and myriad of interventions to solve it. In this essay, I would enumerate some reasons and solutions about it.First of all, the root cause of present crime incidents is drugs. Suspects of heinous crimes like murder and rape are found under the influence of drugs. Even minor individuals are into drug addiction and are tempted to commit crimes in order to satisfy one’s longing. Another factor to the significant increase of crime rates is due to poverty. Many families are suffering from hunger and are struggling from their day to day living.Earning below minimum wage and the various increase in prices of the basic commodities make them uncomfortable and problematic. Due to this fact, they tend to resort to various crimes like stealing, car napping, hold up and even murder just for survival. In order to minimize drug related crimes, the government must implement stricter policy in enforcing the campaign against drug trafficking. Drug lords and dealers must be imprisoned for life and be penalized.In the case of poverty, the government should provide more budget to the Department of Education and even provide subsidized tuition to students of low-earning families. In this manner, these students will have a chance of attaining a degree and will have a much better career in the future that will lift their families from poverty. Thus, this will have a domino effect in decreasing the crime incidents in the community. Therefore, drug addiction and poverty should be primarily addressed by the government to decrease the country’s crime rate.

The Short Run vs. the Long Run in Microeconomics

Many an economics student has pondered the difference between the long run and the short run in economics. They wonder, Just how long is the long run and how short is the short run? Not only is this a great question, but its an important one. Heres a look at the difference between the long run and the short run in microeconomics. Short Run vs. Long Run In the study of economics, the long run and the short run dont refer to a specific period of time, such as five years versus three months. Rather, they are conceptual time periods, the primary difference being the flexibility and options decision-makers have in a given scenario. In the second edition of Essential Foundations of Economics, American economists Michael Parkin and Robin Bade  give an excellent explanation of the distinction between the two within the branch of microeconomics: The short run  is a period of time in which the quantity of at least one input is fixed and the quantities of the other inputs can be varied. The long run is a period of time in which the quantities of all inputs can be varied. There is no fixed time that can be marked on the calendar to separate the short run from the long run. The short run and long run distinction varies from one industry to another. In short, the long run and the short run in microeconomics are entirely dependent on the number of variable and/or fixed inputs that affect the production output. Example of Short Run vs. Long Run Consider the example of a hockey stick manufacturer. A company in that industry will need the following to manufacture its sticks: Raw materials such as lumberLaborMachineryA factory Variable Inputs and Fixed Inputs Suppose the demand for hockey sticks has greatly increased, prompting the company to produce more sticks. It should be able to order more raw materials with little delay, so consider raw materials to be a variable input. Additional labor will be needed, but that could come from an extra shift and overtime, so this is also a variable input. Equipment, on the other hand, might not be a variable input. It might be time-consuming to add equipment. Whether new equipment will be considered a variable input will  depend  on how long it would take to buy and install the equipment and to train workers to use it. Adding an extra factory, on the other hand, is certainly not something that could be done in a short period of time, so this would be the fixed input. Using the definitions at the beginning of the article, the short run is the period in which a company can increase production by adding more raw materials and more labor but not another factory. Conversely, the long run is the period in which all inputs are variable, including factory space, meaning that there are no fixed factors or constraints preventing an increase in production output. Implications of Short Run vs. Long Run In the hockey stick company example, the increase in demand for hockey sticks will have different implications in the short run and the long run at the industry level. In the short run, each firm in the industry will increase its labor supply and raw materials to meet the added demand for hockey sticks. At first, only existing firms will be likely to capitalize on the increased demand, as they will be the only  businesses that have access to the four inputs needed to make the sticks. In the long run, however, the factory input is variable, which means that existing firms are not constrained and can change the size and number of factories they own while new firms can build or buy factories to produce hockey sticks. In the long run, new firms will likely enter the hockey stick market to meet the increased demand. Short Run vs. Long Run in Macroeconomics One of the reasons the concepts of the short run and the long run in economics are so important is that their meanings vary depending on the context in which they are used. which also is true in macroeconomics.