Bush War
Essay Preview: Bush War
Report this essay
ÐŽoBushЎЇs warÐŽ± For Democracy or for oil?
President George W. Bush went to war with Iraq on 2003. His reasons for going to war were to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. In my opinion, the war with Iraq was unnecessary and shows BushЎЇs aggressive attitude towards other Countries. He wasted billions of dollars to kill innocent lives instead of that money being used for other public purposes like education, Hurricane Katrina relief, welfare, infrastructure, social security etc. Would you want your tax money to be spent to kill innocent people? American soldiers are dying everyday in Iraq because they are called in duty. They are dying not for the people but for George Bush. He said that soldiers are there to defend the country. Defend the country from what? Nobody is attacking America right now. Ironically, America is the aggressor right now towards Iraq and now they are doing to Iran exactly what they did to Iraq in 2003. Would you want your sons and children to be called on duty to go to war with Iran or Iraq and kill innocent people? Would you want your children to risk their lives for a cause that is not for the country? I think no parents would want to see their sons to go to war unless the situation really calls for it. Your sons arenЎЇt even allowed to buy a drink at the bar if he is under the age of 21 but is allowed to take innocent lives for Mr. George BushЎЇs oil. ItЎЇs very ironic.
War is supposed to be the last thing to declare if the two countries really canЎЇt work their misunderstandings and if war is really inevitable. My question is what does America get from this war? Was this war really necessary to defend our country and waste billions of dollars that come from poor taxpayers like us? Or their real purpose is to have control over the country of Iraq and control over their oil?
We all know that Middle Eastern countries have the richest source of oil. Iraq is the second largest oil supplier in the world. In 2003, America attacked Iraq. Thousands of innocent women and children died. BushЎЇs says its casualty of war and collateral damage. How can you say it casualty of war? Did anybody in America die that time and wakeup with their house being destroyed or their children died because of bomb attacks? He is claiming that we are at war. He should rephrase his sentence to ÐŽoI am at warÐŽ± because the people of America donЎЇt want to go to war and kill innocent people to accomplish his self interest. Innocent lives were taken. Houses and buildings were destroyed. How would you feel if you were sleeping soundly and all of a sudden your house explodes because some crazy president said he wants to help you and give you liberty and freedom from Saddam Hussein? The people of Iraq didnЎЇt cry for George BushЎЇs help. They were living peacefully and fulfilling their daily duties. They may not have the same freedom as we do have right now but itЎЇs none of our business. ThatЎЇs their countryЎЇs policy. They have a different form of government. ItЎЇs not right to go over there and kill innocent people and claim it liberating them. If he is so determined to liberate other countries from a tyrant government, how come he canЎЇt do it to China where China has a communist government and you donЎЇt have civil rights like we have right now? There was an incident in 1989 in China, Tiananmen Square where thousands of Chinese students were killed because they were protesting against the government. That is a clear abuse of the people but America didnЎЇt do anything because China is a stronger country than Iraq and they America have no strong reasons to go to war with for its actions. I feel like America is bullying Iraq. ItЎЇs like a big boy beating up this poor boy and saying give me your candy or else I will punch your face. George Bush claims that there were weapons of mass destructions in Iraq. IЎЇm just curious, did he find any? After hundreds and thousands of innocent lives were lost, according to CNN.com ÐŽoWASHINGTON (CNN) — Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludesÐŽ± Here is what USATODAYЎЇs reports ÐŽoIn recent months, Bush and top administration officials have scaled back their assertions that banned weapons would be found in Iraq. After eight months of searching, U.S. inspectors have found no evidence that such weapons existed. Kays emphatic comments forced the administration to stop insisting that such weapons ultimately would be found.ÐŽ± Innocent lives and livelihoods were destroyed and there were no weapons of mass destructions where found. The least he could do is say sorry but instead he insisted that the war on Iraq was inevitable and removing Saddam Hussein from power would make this world a safer place. In my opinion Removing George Bush would make this world a safer place and will result into world peace. As a matter of fact, Iraq really didnЎЇt have any weapons of Mass destructions. Which country has weapons of mass destructions? The greatest and strongest country in the world, America. We are the ones who have weapons of mass destructions. ItЎЇs like saying we can have weapons but Iraq canЎЇt? North Korea has Weapons of Mass Destructions, why didnЎЇt he disarm them? Because BushЎЇs real interest is IraqЎЇs oil and the kickbacks he would get from Iraq war. He would gain control of IraqЎЇs oil and make money from it. He could also declare that hundreds of billions of dollars were spent and put a few millions of dollars in his pocket. The United Nations didnЎЇt fully support his actions. Germany and France disagreed with his war intent but instead he still went to Iraq.
Economy is suffering, According to George Bush in a State of the Nation Address ÐŽoBy the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programsÐŽ± According to the Social Security trustees, starting in 2042 (when todayЎЇs 30-year-old workers are retired) the system as currently designed will be able to pay only 73 percent of scheduled benefits, in effect a 27 percent cut in retiree benefits. That cut will grow larger each year after 2042.
This is what George Bush has accomplished so far. He has put this country into economic