40 !

i need im stuck!



the invasion of iraq was very controversial. many editors and columnists voiced strong opinions on the iraq war. considering the points of controversy below, do you think the united states was justified in their invasion of iraq? defend your position by providing two reasons for your claim based on the points of controversy below; make sure to use specific examples from the text as support for your reasons.

points of controversy:

pre-emptive war

evidence of weapons of mass destruction (wmds)

efforts at diplomacy

approval of the united nations

results of the war

I and others here don’t have the text in front of us that your question mentions. I’ll simply offer some thoughts.

I do not believe the US was justified in its invasion of Iraq. The claim that Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false. The allegations of that were exaggerated in order to justify gout to war. There was no hard evidence that the weapons existed.

The idea of a pre-emptive strike also was a poor justification for war. The US had never gone to war on that basis before. It put the US in the role of the aggressor nation in the conflict.

the doctrine of nullification recommended that states living inside the union have the one-sided, inalienable ideal to void any law made by the national government that could be esteemed illegal.

the united states was shaped based on a general agreement among its individual states. hence, it is inferred that under the hypothesis of invalidation, since the states are the establishment of the union, they have the ability to referee and disprove unlawful laws.

c. troops marched forward in close formation against newer, more accurate weapons