Rhetorical Analysis This letter was written by U.S President, George Bush on 9 Jan 1991, to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in order to justify the reasons for an outbreak of war against Iraq in case the country does not withdraw from Kuwait and does not comply with the UN Security Council resolution 678. Although only written to the Iraqi President, the letter addresses to the world to give the cause of a future action due to noncompliance. The writer’s thesis can be seen at the start of the text, where he clearly mentions a probable outcome, that is, war, if Iraq does not surrender. Thereby grasping the attention of the reader and develops curiosity to determine a way how war can be prevented and whether there is any logical reason for the
President Reagan contended that we were trying to get an opening to “moderate” or anti-Khomeini forces in Iran rather than trafficking with hard-line terrorists and extremists. This explanation, too, has been dismissed as a subterfuge on the grounds that “all the moderates in Iran are dead.” Again, the evidence strongly supports the President’s view. As our chronology makes clear, the idea of seeking an opening to Iran, of trying to identify and deal with moderate elements there, predated the events that brought the hostage issue to the forefront. This theme emerged time and again in early statements from the NSC and CIA and were prominent in administration thinking throughout the Iranian initiative. And the President himself consistently stressed that he sought an opening to moderate elements in Tehran.
• 1979 – 1988 – The US and Pakistan work together to prevent Soviet forces from further advancing into the region • 1987 – Pakistan was the second biggest receiver of US aid. • 1987 – America adopted the Pressler amendment, which was would be given if Pakistan could prove that it would not be used for the development
Through the Yalta Conference, in February 1945, the US successfully gained Soviet support for the Pacific War and invasion of the Japanese empire. However, the US was reluctant to share the post-war administration of Japan with the Soviet Union, meaning it needed to gain victory before Soviet entry into the war during mid-August. Only the atomic bomb would allow this to occur since it could destroy vital military targets, therefore making it the only option available to the
In the case of Afghanistan, there would be a point of trying to institute a democratic regime if it was right after the won Afghan war from 1980’s. As is apparent from her doctrine, she did not support actions trying to constitute a democratic regime in country, where there were no traditions for such a form of government. That sounds perfectly logic, the only think that I do not understand about that is, why she would support the total war aimed in deposing Saddam twelve years before. Of course, the situation then was much better prepared for such a venture, the overthrowing of Saddam would plausibly be much less expensive, however, the core challenge, the absence of readiness of Iraq (and also of Afghanistan) and their civilians to become rulers for themselves, was always
Dear US citizens, There is no reason to worry we will have this all under control. In the years following WWI we as a country took many different approaches at keeping peace. The Treaty of Versailles, the peace treaty that ended WWI punished Germany for starting the war, Germany was not allowed to have heavy artillery, was forced to give up colonies in Africa, and for causing the war Germany was to pay $33 billion dollars in damages. The League of Nations was an organization to prevent future wars. You can’t forget the Washington conference when the US, Japan, Italy, and France all scraped their battleships and agreed not to build anymore for 10 years.
In the article “No Sympathy” was a quote by Prime Minister David Tusk stated two years before as he replied to a human rights group as said “I do not believe that we can call these individuals -- these creatures -- human beings," he added. "So in this case, we don't need to discuss human rights." At the end of the day the important question to ask is this. Is castration about punishment of offenders or public safety? Dr. Keith Albow gave his analysis on Fox News.com in the article “chemical castration” his article conveniently contains info discussing of a scientific study that found that offenders on Depo-Provera re-offended less than 1 percent in comparison to 68 whom were not taking the drug.
Bin Laden found this group in the late 1980s to defend and fight the Soviets who invaded Afghanistan. After the Soviets pulled out of their country, bin Laden decided that his group should not dissolve and should become the headquarter for future jihad. Following the four unfortunate events, the country was immediately put on full nuclear alert by the government. After a couple hours of investigation, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a statement that Osama bin Laden is the number one suspect of these attacks. Nine days after the attack on September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush released an ultimatum statement to the Taliban government of Afghanistan to turn Bin Laden over but the Talibans resisted and asked for evidence.
He plans to send an additional 30,000 troops. In July 2011, it is expected the troops will begin to pull out of Afghanistan. Even though we have a date to start withdrawal, Obama has made it known that this date is only conditional, depending on the how things look on the ground. In conclusion, we went to war because of the devastating and deadly terrorist attacks to our nation on September 11, 2001. We sent troops to Afghanistan to bring down Osama bin Laden and the other al-Qaeda members, as well as helping the nation build a democratic leadership.
A few weeks ago, one of the president's advisors told NPR that Mr. Bush never wanted to burden the public with the war; that, in his mind, he was hired by the American people to do the job on their behalf. Gingrich says the President is placed in an awkward position. "I think the President is torn between reassuring us that he's managing the war and warning us that it's a real war," says Gingrich. "You have organized opponents who want to kill you — they're gathering resources and coordinating to try to kill you — and I think to try to describe it as anything but a war, is remarkably misleading." The War with No