Why did the U.S Invade Iraq in 2003? Arguement #1 ­ to force his hand over his willingness to open about WMD programs Arguement #2 ­ to put an end to his state sponsorship of terrorism // promote democracy http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2012/10/25/why­did­the­united­states­invade­iraq­in­2003­2/ http://www.e­ir.info/2011/08/01/why­did­the­united­states­invade­iraq­in­2003­and­what­went­wrong­with­the
­subsequent­occupation­what­impact­has­the­war­had­on­us­foreign­policy/

http://www.academicresearchjournals.org/IJPSD/PDF/2014/December/Amin.pdf http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/why­did­the­united­states­invade­iraq­politics­essay.php http://www­personal.umd.umich.edu/~atthrall/whyiraq.pdf http://www.saylor.org/site/wp­content/uploads/2012/10/POLSC211­Unit­2­Assessment­Understanding­and­A pplying­Theoretical­Lenses­Sample­Essay­FINAL.pdf http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/the­causes­and­consequences­of­the­iraq­war­politics­essay.php http://www.antiessays.com/free­essays/Why­Did­The­U­s­Go­To­93154.html http://www­personal.umd.umich.edu/~atthrall/whyiraq.pdf Introduction: Hook

Introduction: Thesis Statement

Introduction: Roadmap

Body #1 (Argument)

Body #2 (Argument)

Conclusion: Summary

Conclusion: Research limits

Conclusion: Generalizability

Conclusion: Broader Implications

possible literature review just war theory ­ http://www.bmartin.cc/classes/STS390_04topessays/Rene_Chambers.pdf

Many theories confirmed that US arguments were trying to secure Iraqi oil reserves which was the main cause for invasion. This war was main causes that oil and gas industry rose on

the world economy and the growing importance of oil in maintaining America’s hegemonic position in international relations. Find out more from UK Essays here: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/the­causes­and­consequences­of­the­iraq­war­politi cs­essay.php#ixzz3U32BbLxG

DISARM IRAQ OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

­

Weapons of mass­destruction, or WMDs were one of the main arguments behind the invasion. It was argued by the US and the British governments that Iraq was in possession of weapons that were a serious threat to the security of western nations and the security of the nations in the region. They argued that intervention and regime change was necessary to forcibly disarm a nation that was not complying with the demands and requirements of the international community and which they argued was a global danger.
[2]
On this understanding then, one of the primary aims of the invasion of Iraq was to increase the security of the US and the rest of the world by removing a regime that posed a threat through contempt for the international community, a historical record of hostility to its neighbours, and the possession of weapons capable of massive destructive force.
­ (2) Powell, Colin ‘Transcript of Powell’s UN Presentation’ February 6, 2003,
CNN,
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/index.html
,
retrieved on 15.03.2010
­ http://www.e­ir.info/2010/06/10/the­2003­invasion­of­iraq­under­the­micr oscope/#_ftn2 TO END SADDAM’S SUPPORT OF TERRORISM BY PROMOTING DEMOCRACY ­ Another element of the US’ plan to protect itself was based on the belief that undemocratic and dictatorial regimes create conditions that enable the growth of terrorist groups, are prone to war, and create tension and conflict internationally.
Liberal democracy, they argued, is a much more peaceful form of government. The
Neo­conservatives that had a large influence over the Bush Administration’s foreign policy argue that democracies rarely, if ever, fight one another or experience civil war or internal conflict.
[8]
This democratic peace exists because, according to liberals and neo­conservatives, because the decision to go to war is made by a government that is directly accountable to the people, and it is the