Many Arguments

There are many issues which question whether or not George W. Bush is making the right moves concerning his foreign policy. Many arguments have been brought up to go both ways. The main issue to date is whether or not we should have gone to war with Iraq, for this was a very bold move on the president's behalf. Even though he is the leader of one of the worlds most powerful nations this does not give him the right to go and do what he wants.

Making the decision to go against what the United Nations believed we should do was a bad move on the president's part. This offends our allies and if we are so willing to go against what they recommend what is going to stop them from helping us with our future endeavors. We may need their help in the future and why would they be willing to give it if we don't listen to them. Bush's move not only effects the world's view on him as a president it effects their view on our nation as a whole. We should not alienate ourselves from the world we can not remain a world power if we aren't willing to work with other world powers. This move has lead to prejudices against allies as well. There is a strong resentment towards France that is held by much of the population which has leaded some establishments to even change the name of French fries to "freedom fries".

A main argument that the Bush administration had for the invasion of Iraq was that it would help to make the world a safer place. Was there ever really any definite reason why it wasn't so safe in the first place with Saddam as the Iraqi leader? By going to war with Iraq did not in fact help to make the world a safer place but in fact it helped people in the Arab community like Osama Bin Laden (terrorist). He has helped them by bringing the United States right where Osama wants them in the heart of the Arab-Islamic world where we are resented by hundreds of millions of people whom see the invasion as an act of imperialism (Zunes, 2004, p. 3). By remaining in Iraq where he wants us we are only building up a greater up rise against us. This up rise does not only come from loyalist of Saddam Hussein but from the normal Iraqi people who seek self-determination and an end to American occupation of their country.

Before America went into Iraq the reasons for going to war with them were discussed on CBS's Face the Nation. The spokesperson was none other than Condoleezza Rice who said "the world will be a much safer place when the Iraqi people have the regime that they deserve, instead of the regime that they have" (Daalder & Lindsay, 2005, p. 129). It is probably true that the Iraqi people do not have the regime that they deserve but is this the same as saying that by completely annihilating Saddam Hussein's despotic rule over the single country of Iraq that the entire world is no a safer place. Colin Powell stated on CNN's late edition that "the United States believes that the Iraqi people would still be better off with a new kind of leadership that is not trying to hide this sort of development activity on weapons of mass destruction and is not of the despotic nature that the Saddam Hussein regime is" (p. 129). This would be more effective if before this he had not said that they had already searched for weapons of mass destruction and had found none. They were the ones who regulated the search and still they were not satisfied. When Saddam was finally overthrown and they saw how these people were reacting, it was then admitted that Saddam had a reason to rule the way that they did because these people were hard to keep in line.

"THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION inevitably resorts to name-calling whenever it is in trouble. As The New York Times noted in a March 26 editorial concerning the accusations of former top counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke, "The White House is so thin-skinned and defensive... that it simply cannot bring itself to join what ought to be a grown-up national conversation of how best to deal with terrorism. This childish exercise, they continue, makes the President appear to be "far more interested in undermining Mr. Clarke's credibility than in addressing the heart of his critique" (Howell, 2004, p. 23) This sounds like the classic Bush throughout his presidency he does not address the issue he instead says things like these people are "evil", they are not bad but evil. Bush is using these childish games to draw people's attention away from what is really going on and he is trying to make Saddam out as a bad person and that's who he really wants to get rid of.

The main problem that can be seen for the United States invasion of Iraq was that the main reason for us going to war with them was because of the so called weapons of mass destruction they had attained. The fact was there were no weapons of mass destruction found anywhere in the country of Iraq at all. War was waged on this country for what reason because they had weapons of mass destruction that in fact were never found. Bush knows that Saddam Hussein is a liar; history shows us that because he has done it so many times in the past. So should it be assumed that there was no threat lying in this country at all? No, but after the search was over for the weapons and none were found is probably not the greatest time to declare war on that country when it is announced that it is the sole reason for going to war.

"There has been a disturbing degree of triumphalism following the [April 2003} overthrow--perhaps 'evaporation' is a better word--of Saddam Hussein's regime in the face of invading American forces. Even putting aside the appropriateness of this kind of gloating in the face of such death and destruction--including thousands of civilian casualties--it is striking that few people are asking whether the U.S.