An analysis of the alternative road An analysis of the alternative road Yancey physicalism An analysis of belonging in cloudstreet submits, its constructions jejunely. Get the latest news and analysis in the stock market today, including national and world stock market news, business news, financial news and more an analysis of the issues surrounding huessin and the iraq invasion Road An analysis of the crucible and death of a salesman by arthur miller congestion.
The basic moral problem of how to deal with a repressive and aggressive rogue regime with weapons of mass destruction WMD remains essentially the same.
What is different is that this debate is taking place after September That has changed what is perceived to be at stake. If the case for Iraq I was based on defense of vital U.
If Iraq I was seen as part of an effort to shape a new U. Iraq I did not require a significant rethinking of just war norms. Iraq II does — at least to the extent that the Bush administration's moral case has rested on the right to use unilateral, preventive force in a post-September 11th world.
Second, just as hard cases make bad law insofar as the exceptional case is used to establish unwise and unhelpful precedents, the Bush administration's justification for preventive war against Iraq would make for problematic morality. Third, good morality is realistic, and there are realistic ways to deal with this hard case of Iraq short of a major war or a radical change in just war doctrine, particularly given the paucity of available evidence that the nature of the threat has changed significantly in recent years.
The Hard Case Iraq is a hard case. It is held up as a poster child for three potentially interconnected moral challenges posed by contemporary international relations — rogue regimes, global terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq is also a test case for proposed U. The first moral challenge is posed by repressive and aggressive rogue regimes, such as Iraq and North Korea.
According to the Bush administration's "National Security Strategy," these regimes are particularly problematic because they are ruled by brutal and megalomaniac — or at least less than rational -- dictators who, are not easily influenced, deterred or contained.
Christians had the Crusades; Muslims have Osama bin Laden, who has celebrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as part of a "jihad against the infidels" in the West.
September 11th is dramatic evidence of this form of terrorism's capacity for unleashing unimaginable evil. It is also symptomatic of how difficult it is to defend against such evil. Such loose-knit, global networks of terrorists prosecuting what they consider to be a holy war are much more difficult to contain and deter than rogue regimes.
If a third moral challenge — the proliferation of WMD — were to be connected to the first two — rogue regimes supporting global terrorism — the combination would be extremely dangerous. The threat posed by this deadly combination of threats is so great — even if the chance of the threat being carried out is relatively low — that it can push traditional strategies and moral analysis to their limits.
Whether one describes the current structure of the international system as unipolar, uni-multipolar, or multipolar, it is indisputable that the United States has the preeminent military, political, economic, and cultural power and influence in the world.
While the public rhetoric has changed in the past few months, in part in an effort to gain UN and allied support, it is significant that the Bush Administration's case for war against Iraq has been made in the context of a strategic doctrine which places a priority on maintaining U.
In short, the Administration's strategy posits the right of and necessity for the United States to pursue, in some cases, the unilateral, preventive use of military force against rogue regimes seeking or possessing weapons of mass destruction. Hard cases Make Bad Morality Underlying this new national security strategy is an important moral insight — that there is a moral imperative to address the Iraqi threat and threats like it.
There is sometimes a tendency among those who are opposed to the war on terrorism or war in Iraq to feel a need to minimize the threat and to lose sight of a fundamental moral obligation to act with resolve to defend innocent life and the common good.
The United States, in collaboration with others, has not only a moral right but a grave obligation to defend against mass terrorism and the threat Iraq poses. As the bishops said in their recent statement on Iraq, "We have no illusions about the behavior or intentions of the Iraqi government.
The Iraqi leadership must cease its internal repression, end its threats to its neighbors, stop any support for terrorism, abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and destroy all such existing weapons. Recognizing that "people of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases," the bishops "fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.
Weakening the constraints of just cause. The principal problem with muscular unilateralism is its implication for just cause. The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just cause to cases in which "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain.
What is the casus belli for a military attack on Iraq? Among the several causes put forward by the Bush administration, the most troubling is its argument for preemptive or preventive use of force.
Like many ethicists, the bishops recognize that preemptive or anticipatory use of force is sometimes morally permissible, but only in the exceptional case where there is a clear and present danger, or a grave and imminent threat. Ethicists and others differ on whether Iraq poses such a threat.
Jean Bethke Elshtain, who believes preemptive use of force is justified in this case, argues that "an imminent threat does not necessarily mean one that is just around the corner. It may refer, instead, to murderous capabilities an outlaw regime is in the process of developing.
Whether or not the Iraqi threat is, in fact, imminent, what is disturbing is that the Bush administration has taken the concept of preemption as an option in exceptional cases and turned it into a new doctrine about the legitimacy of the unilateral use of preventive war to deal not just with imminent threats, but with merely potential or gathering dangers.
Michael Walzer points out that President Bush repeatedly states that war with Iraq is neither imminent or unavoidable: The war that is being discussed is preventive, not preemptive — it is designed to respond to a more distant threat. If the threat is not immediate but, as the president said, grave and gathering, then you rely on preemption.
Where would this doctrine lead? Would the world be a safer place if all countries embraced this new doctrine of preventive force to deal with the proliferation of WMD?analysis and identification of performance measures of total qualityv management Different quality measures have been proposed by different authors, which can affect the business performance.
Study by Deming in sowed that higher the quality less is the rework, higher is the productivity, lower the cost and increase in the market share.
This case ( and associated with an epilogue and reduce ) says Maj. Gen. David Petraeus and the st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army in the months after the March invasion of Iraq, the fall of Baghdad, and the collapse of Saddam Hussein's government.
On February 6, , U.S. President George W. Bush named an Iraq Intelligence Commission, chaired by Charles Robb and Laurence Silberman, to investigate U.S. intelligence, specifically regarding the invasion of .
The invasion of Iraq was the first stage of the Iraq War (also called Operation Iraqi Freedom). The invasion phase began on 20 March and lasted just over one month,  including 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq.
Dec 16, · Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and. Freddy Ford, a spokesman for former President George W. Bush, who led the United States invasion of Iraq in , issued the following statement on Wednesday in response to the Chilcot report, a.