The War in IraqThe War in IraqThe purpose of this paper is to prove to the reader that America should pull troops out of Iraq. There are several good reasons to do so, but I am only going to touch on three. The first reason is the high death toll of Americans, the second is the high cost, and the third is that there is a hidden agenda
There have been thousands of deaths in the past four years because of the war. The death toll for Americans is up to 3,000 troops over the past few years. For the Iraqis it could be between 48,800 – 654,965, depending on which poll looked at (Lacey, 2006). If thought about it, these numbers really don’t matter. Even if one soldier dies within four years, a family still lost a loved one. Either way, a special person had been lost for someone who really needs him or her. President Bush is planning on sending 20,000 more troops over to Iraq; to me that mean 20,000 more possible deaths. Should we take the chance of losing a loved one over a hidden agenda?
The cost of this war is outstanding (and not in a good way). It costs $100,000 per soldier to get them ready for combat (Mulrine, 2007). The total cost is up to $5,489,356,000 and rising every second we speak. If Bush adds another 20,000 troops to this, at $100,000 a person, this is another $2,000,000,000. That is a lot of money; everyone in America could have free gas for a year instead of wasting so much money on war. The $2,000,000,000 does not include the cost of month-to-month expenses like: food, water, and equipment. The cost of month-to-month expenses is between “6 billion and 9 billion dollars” (Iraq, 2002). There is also another cost that not everyone is aware of. Even after the war is over, it will still cost us around “4 billion dollars a month for U.S. occupation of Iraq” (Iraq, 2002). What we should really do with all that money is invest it in our local communities. Communities across the United States contribute millions of dollars to this war, while their schools are lacking supplies.
After four years and some odd months, billions of dollars, and thousands of deaths, what has America accomplished? There were never any weapons of mass destruction intended for the U. S. The government already knew this before we went over there; it was a government excuse to attack Iraq. So, what is the real reason we are at war? What do they have that we want? Oil, “115 billion barrels of proved oil reserve which is the third largest supply in the world.” From uncovering documents, it has been proven that Bush’s administration had plans for getting Iraq’s oil before the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. (Thornton, 2005). Bush wants everyone to think that American troops are in Iraq to disarm it. If that is the case, why is it taking
The Pentagon and the CIA can now say with good reason that the U.S. has an interest in the Iraq War and intends to use its weapons of mass destruction against the “Syrian government.”
On the subject of the Iraq War, we know that all the “Syrian” weapons of mass destruction were the actual ones Bush wants to use. We know that the Bush Administration has repeatedly called for arming the Syrians but in the past had refused to do so. The fact is that the Syrian regime’s “gas chambers” (gas masks and “gas masks with metal rods”) were the real weapons Bush wanted. He is going to get these gas masks and the “gas masks” by now, but his policy, no matter how small, will never end. As it turns out, even as a private citizen, he could do all this without the aid of any form of American aid.
At the same time that the president is trying to get the Syrian government to arm, the Assad regime is making a terrible war on its people and their people for the past several years now with a policy of genocide against all Syrian ethnic groups who might not be willing to give up their weapons of mass destruction. The Syrian regime has a large number of chemical warheads, a long list of biological agents, and hundreds of chemical weapons that have been tested in Syria. All of this means that Assad is continuing a pattern of genocide: the Assad regime is trying to destroy Syria with chemical weapons and a chemical gas attack against the Syrian population. At issue is how to stop this sort of genocide by regime proxies in the region like Russia and other non-Russian states like Jordan.
The United States is also trying to make the Syrian government look bad by giving them new chemical weapons as a military response. This is obviously a military response, but this action is also a military response. Syria can now be used to give Damascus and Assad a false sense of security. And that’s exactly what happened with the chemical weapons that Assad used: by being blown up by Assad’s air force, Assad’s forces became so effective that the Syrian Army can go back to war, and so much of the violence would end.
The U. S. is also attempting to get a second war started with Iraq. According to the New York Times, “The State Department is calling for troops to be sent to Iraq this summer for the first time since 2009, and President Barack Obama is expected to announce plans to send troops there in March.” Obama intends to send more troops to Syria “on Oct. 1, but his administration is also planning to use soldiers from the United States, Canada, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Denmark, along with a team of more than 6,800 foreign