If that was the case, President W. Bush would have just deployed the nuclear arsenal upon Afghanistan and been done with it. Objectives in war are not to go in and completely destroy the whole nation; no, the goals are to destroy the evil that are corrupting the country. As President W. Bush put it in his speech to Congress on September 11, 2001: “Our ʻwar on terrorʼ begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until
xviii. No countries in the Western Hemisphere and only a few worldwide who pose a strategic threat to the US xix. Its economic, geographic and military strength ensure that such a policy would not only be viable but could indeed thrive xx. Neutrality would be truer to America’s roots and traditions that our current imperialist policies and would also reduce our threat level, enemies and military expenses. xxi.
The principal itself that the United Nation, the one and only organization that protects human rights and stands against threats to rights of all people, refused the invasion of Iraq should give enough reasons to not support the placement of war. An invasion is not a conflict where two countries fight one another for the foal of obtaining a right for defense or threats. An invasion, such as this one, is when one country tries to take control of another for the simple fact of intruding and taking power. This is achieved with violence; therefore Bush’s reason for suspecting, with no evidence, Saddam to have connections with aiding terrorism didn’t have to lead to an invasion. The core problem was Saddam, not Iraq and its people.
Given the fluid and dynamic nature of the war on terror as it has been presented, the United States has not been able to pursue one particular defense policy. The policy of defending the world against terror is very sweeping and commits the United States in many areas of the world. At one point, focus was on Iraq, as a haven for terrorists who were supposedly promulgating the war from Baghdad. This allowed obliviousness to fomenting in Afghanistan, which now might be where our focus is on at this time. The reality is that both defense and foreign policy have had to be malleable and somewhat pliable because the justification for the war ended up constricting the hopes of definite and static foreign policy.
It has been argued even further to say it was time well worth spending in Iraq and Vietnam. When analyzing these points one must understand that at that point in time America was deathly scared of communism and instilled an idea in their heads that if not for entering the war at that moment, then communism would make its way around to other countries and finally reach America. However, our government made the fatal mistake of failing to look in the long run and see that America was already a strong nation and by entering a war that would not certainly end communism the government weakened every aspect of the economy. In accordance, Iraq was completely uninvolved in the terrorist attack on 9/11, the accusation of concealing “weapons of mass destruction” was completely false, and having now realized that the only weapons they did have were from a purchase from the United States to them several years
Dropping the bomb on an already defeated country would damage the moral leadership of United States. We should show our values and humane cares. Killing civilians is inhumane and unnecessary since we’re so close to winning. We can even continue fighting with soldiers and still win. Also, by not using the bomb, the U.S won’t be held responsible for all the innocent lives lost from the bombings and won’t feel shameful for the lives lost.
The United States as a whole was in high risk of security breaches after September 11,2011 and still is today. The government is in a predicament where they must choose what is best for the country as far as protection. The only problem with protection for the nation’s best interests is the risk of eliminating civil liberties and giving the government more power than what the Constitution really intended. Americans expect for their government to protect them for all threats. And they’re right they should.
Torture is sometimes used when a suspect is believed to have information on a catastrophic event or might know of a terrorist organization. The suspect is then exposed to a painful series of different mental and physical methods to give up the desired information. Torture has been used in times of war and in situations where the information could save a society form danger. However, torture should never be justifiable or acceptable because it usually doesn’t provide reliable information, the person that we want to torture might truly not know the information that we would like to obtain, and it would degrade our nations integrity. “Suspects that are inflicted with torture will say just about anything to
Although instead of taking the military’s advice, and launching an invasion, Kennedy does deserve credit for the innovative approach of the blockade. However, Kennedy should not receive the Noble Peace Prize for doing his job. The Noble Peace Prize is given to the person who has done the most for the abolishment of war. President Kennedy’s goal was to eradicate communism, regardless of innocent lives that were taken in the process. His choice to put missiles in Turkey and his choice to put the United States in a war with Vietnam, a war that could not be won does not show a person trying to abolish war.
Or, to put the question another way, what does the demise of al-Qaeda’s leader mean for the war on terror? The jubilation in America at the bin Laden’s death is understandable. It is also, in a sense, misplaced. As a symbolic act, bin Laden’s death is highly significant. But in terms of changing the reality on the ground, it is relatively meaningless.