The Iraq wars have been going on for years and America has yet to make any type of progress in Iraq. The United States troops are brothers, sisters, moms, dads, aunts, and uncles of others here on the homeland. According to Charles V. Pena, “Bush has not even set a timetable for how long the United States will stay in Iraq.” This just means that no one knows really how long the troops will be in Iraq and they will still continue to send the troops overseas to foreign territory and be on their toes continuously. The United States have enough troops over in Iraq already so they wouldn’t need to send more since things are already calming down and they are hoping to pull the troops out soon. Katulis Brian makes a good point in saying “The Bush administration should correct the mistakes it made to date in its reconstruction efforts by supporting international funds to provide emergency humanitarian and economic assistance. These development projects should give priority to hiring Iraqis.” All that He is saying is that since the United States invaded and took over under Bush’s administration, …show more content…
This is only legal in one instance. One country would have to have proof that another country is going to engage in an armed attack. They are not allowed to attack if they do not have any evidence that another country is going to attack. The United States used the excuse that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D). When they went overseas to attack Iraq and find these weapons of mass destruction they came up empty handed. They have yet to this day to find any (W.M.D). While overseas there has been mass slaughters of innocent people in Iraq. Michael S. Rozeff describes what happens when you attack another country without any proof that they are going to attack first with the intention of