Against war iraq essay

Neuhaus’s experiences as a pastor in the New York slums and his passionate opposition to abortion had led him rightward in the 1980s. But he was disturbed by the racial politics of Chronicles , and also by what he termed its “insensitiv[ity] to the classical language of anti-Semitism.” Neuhaus contemplated severing the connection between his institute and Rockford. Word of his dissatisfaction filtered back to Illinois, and, one day in May, Rockford struck back. An executive from the institute jetted out to New York, fired Neuhaus and his entire staff, ordered them literally out onto the streets, and changed the office locks. The paleos at Rockford exploded in dumbfounded rage when the foundations that had been supporting Neuhaus’s work refused to switch the money over to them instead.

By 1988, at the Iran–Iraq war's end, the Iraqi Army was the world's fourth largest army; it consisted of 955,000 standing soldiers and 650,000 paramilitary forces in the Popular Army. According to John Childs and André Corvisier, a low estimate shows the Iraqi Army capable of fielding 4,500 tanks, 484 combat aircraft and 232 combat helicopters. [57] According to Michael Knights, a high estimate shows the Iraqi Army capable of fielding one million men and 850,000 reservists, 5,500 tanks, 3,000 artillery pieces, 700 combat aircraft and helicopters; and held 53 divisions, 20 special-forces brigades, and several regional militias, and had a strong air defense. [58]

An Iraqi political party called the People's Kifah, or Struggle Against Hegemony (PK), reported the findings of what the spokesperson described as a survey conducted between March and June 2003 throughout the non-Kurdish areas of Iraq. The group reportedly tallied 36,533 civilians killed in those areas by June 2003. These figures were first published in August 2003 on the website of Jude Wanniski , a retired reporter for The Wall Street Journal . [98] While detailed town-by-town totals are given by the PK spokesperson, details of methodology are very thin and raw data is not in the public domain. A still-less-detailed report on this study appeared some months later on Al Jazeera 's website. [99] The Al Jazeera report claims the study covered up to October 2003, but this cannot be accurate, as exactly the same figures were already published on the Wanniski website in August 2003. No further information on this alleged survey has materialized since.

Because of the lop-sided victory of the coalition, the . dealt more with prisoners than did Iraq. Despite the fact that coalition forces had more opportunity to abuse prisoners, only Iraq found it necessary to violate prisoners' rights. Legally, according to the Geneva Convention, a prisoner of war has rights and is to be treated as a non-combatant. This treatment does not advocate torturing prisoners. The coalition did not do it, not because the average Iraqi soldier held little military information, but because it is morally wrong. Yet the treatment of coalition POWs in the hands of the Iraqi interrogators was violent and painful. Conversely, the thousands of Iraqis who surrendered were fed, clothed, detained humanely, and protected from the hostilities. Coalition prisoners were used as human shields by detaining them at potential bombing sites. Saddam Hussein tried to justify this policy, which is forbidden by the Geneva Convention, by claiming that Western countries had jailed Iraqi students as a security measure (Associated Press 1991). Even if that claim was true, those students were not in danger of being bombed. Contrary to Iraqi beliefs, a violation of the Geneva Convention does not justify a similar violation. Two wrongs do not make a right. If it did, coalition forces had justification enough to commit heinous crimes against Iraqi prisoners. The fact is, American forces did not.

Against war iraq essay

against war iraq essay

Because of the lop-sided victory of the coalition, the . dealt more with prisoners than did Iraq. Despite the fact that coalition forces had more opportunity to abuse prisoners, only Iraq found it necessary to violate prisoners' rights. Legally, according to the Geneva Convention, a prisoner of war has rights and is to be treated as a non-combatant. This treatment does not advocate torturing prisoners. The coalition did not do it, not because the average Iraqi soldier held little military information, but because it is morally wrong. Yet the treatment of coalition POWs in the hands of the Iraqi interrogators was violent and painful. Conversely, the thousands of Iraqis who surrendered were fed, clothed, detained humanely, and protected from the hostilities. Coalition prisoners were used as human shields by detaining them at potential bombing sites. Saddam Hussein tried to justify this policy, which is forbidden by the Geneva Convention, by claiming that Western countries had jailed Iraqi students as a security measure (Associated Press 1991). Even if that claim was true, those students were not in danger of being bombed. Contrary to Iraqi beliefs, a violation of the Geneva Convention does not justify a similar violation. Two wrongs do not make a right. If it did, coalition forces had justification enough to commit heinous crimes against Iraqi prisoners. The fact is, American forces did not.

Media:

against war iraq essayagainst war iraq essayagainst war iraq essayagainst war iraq essay

http://buy-steroids.org