What would you try if you knew you would not fail?

It is true, if we had know there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, we more than likely would have avoided war altogather. However, we did not know for sure, and therefore we invaded. Also, when we did invade the security forces perished. Had we known that we might not have invaded, but yet again we were at a loss of knowledge. The article states that "all wars bring tragedies" and "costs which nobody could have anticipated." Every war has sacrifices, and it is only because we don't know what will happen until it does. Because of what happens, many people turn their backs on the whole purpose of the war. "Many Americans have turned against the war" not because democracy doesn't seem worth the sacrifice, but because they have "grown pessmistic" about if it will work.
According to the article, democracy is working in Iraq. Violence is present, and because of that people believe democracy is failing. The "violence has slowed it down, but has not been able to stop it." There is still hope for their country. Already, they are "performing many essential services."

I am not a person who is against the War, but I think American should not have gone to the war with Iraq or this war should end up soon. I think the Iraq War brought more negative sides than what they were expected for. For example, I understand the point of President Bush decision to go to war with Iraq to “help” them. But there is no reason to kill so many people that are nothing to do with this war. Also this war made this negative stereotype of Arab people; most of people think Arab people are bad and stuff now.

I think the articles are saying that the U.S. should have waited and tried to figure out the reason why we should not go to war with Iraq. I totally agree with this because if we had the time to think and try to find out the reason why we should NOT go to the war instead just thinking why we should go to the war, I believe that the war would have not existed.

In the article “Is Iraq a Worthy Cause’, the author Mario Loyola supports the war in Iraq by saying that the war may seem like a lost cause right now but in the end, it will be worth it. She claims that we need to concentrate on the bigger picture and think about what implications this war will have on the future of Iraq. At this point, she says, Iraq desperately needs US support till it can establish a democracy and stand on its own. She believes that the violence and the killing in Iraq should be overlooked and should not be a point of focus because it is insignificant. Instead, they should concentrate on their goal of establishing and making a democratic form of government in Iraq work. Loyola takes a very objective approach by not focusing on the violence death tolls but by reasoning about how the war is already showing signs of success.

The other article, ‘The Killing Fields of Iraq’, by Robert Scheer, on the other hand, focuses on what impact this war is having on the lives of innocent people. Scheer uses emotional appeal to reaches out to the audience when he talks about the violence and killing of innocents in Iraq. He says that this horrific situation could lead to a very negative and unexpected outcome.

The “killing” field article is certainly more gruesome in detail, citing the number of death in Iraq since the occupation, as well as the opinion that our presence will only bring more violence. The "worthy cause" article has a feeling of being “cleaner” it made no mention of the death in Iraq, instead concerning on the established government. However, I found interesting that in both Article toward the end they were talking about leaving Iraq, actually both of them were supporting the withdraw in a way. The national article believes that the Iraq government is becoming stronger everyday, while the insurgent attacks are insignificant as a whole. The “killing field” article also believe that the Iraqi government is ready to stand up by itself, although it concern much more on the decreasing opinion toward the US in Iraq. The "worthy cause" Article is trying to cast the withdrawal in a positive light, while the “killing field” article is saying “withdraw or die”.

In the article written by Mario Loyola he begins talking about the negative circumstances that developed in the war and then uses this “bad light” on the war to make the few positive things coming out of the war sound even better. He even emphasizes at the end of the article some of the positive things that have happened because of the war. Like Iraq having a military and America having an ally in the Middle East.

In the article by Robert Scheer uses a mixture of statistics to support some arguments that create emotional responses. By using this tactic Scheer is supporting his argument of the war “not building a democracy, but creating mayhem.” Scheer also makes some disturbing remarks about the President’s influence on the war.

Personally I believe that Iraq would be better off without US influences. The US forces aren't 'helping' Iraq, they are hindering its development!

Liberal – is Iraq a worthy cause?
This article basically is trying to convince the readers that the US is in Iraq for a worthy cause, and that they are doing all they can to help the nation in need. However, the article contradicts itself several times. The article admits that the Iraq war was a mistake due to some misinterpretations (“Our best intelligence told us that it looked very much as if Saddam Hussein had all sorts of banned weapons” ) It states that despite knowing this they have still kept their forces in Iraq. This is further reiterated when Loyola comments “With respect to WMDs, a military occupation was necessary to prove that a military occupation was unnecessary’. If a military occupation was unnecessary, why are the US forces still in Iraq?
If democracy is succeeding in Iraq, why are the number of deaths still so high?

Conservative – the killing fields of Iraq
By using descriptive and slightly biased words, such as “bloodbath in Iraq,” this article depicts the deteriorating state of Iraq due to the US forces there. It draws attention to all the damage that is being caused, and how the country would be better off if the US forces went back to the US. This is seen through sentences such as:
“the president has rendered that country a veritable killing field”
“we are not building democracy, we are creating mayhem”
The article points out that the Iraqis are capable of taking care of themselves, and should be allowed to make their own decisions about their nation: the US shouldn’t be deciding what is good for them.

After reading both articles, the nation is the paper that I must start with first. The way that this particular author decided to frame this story was by using the technique of sensationalism. To me, he decided to use a very negative and harsh vocabulary in order to criticize the President’s agenda. He uses his facts the shock value of his heavily opinionated writing. To me after reading this article is that has a few points of why we should leave, but offers not alternative or reasoning behind what he thinks should have been done. He doesn’t present his side of the argument. He just vocalizes his disgust and criticism of the war. The national paper’s view on the war, to me, appeared more analytical and positive. Yes, they approve of the war, but they use support to defend their point of view. This article seems to much less the type of trying to force their opinion on you, like the other, but more of a “here’s what I have to say and it’s up to you to either agree of disagree, but I do believe in my argument.” On a side note, I found it rather interesting that both used quotes from famous individuals in our history. The national used the famous General Douglas Macarthur further showing their pro war point of view and the nation used Martin Luther King Jr., which harps on the issue against violence and in this case against the war.

These 2 articles use a couple different methods to support their arguments. “Killing Fields in Iraq” uses facts and statistics to argue that America shouldn’t be in Iraq, while the other article, “Is Iraq a Worthy Cause?” admits that terrible things are going on in Iraq, but the final product is well worth the cost.

Pre-reading:
The tumultuous circumstance of war in general wreaks emotional havoc on those directly involved (as in on the battlefields) and those left behind (families, economy, friends), and the means by which the media have featured the war has been just that: a feature. They have turned the war into an object that the media have manipulated into whatever they choose in order to gain recognition for their own source. Radical radio talk shows, wrenching photographs, blockbuster films and celebrity-founded organizations spotlight the sidelines of the war instead of truly investing ourselves in the heartache and intensity of life on the battlefield where soldiers are doing what they know best in defending our country and following orders. It reminds me of a reality television series (and I wouldn’t be surprised if someone decided to launch a reality Iraq war series…) where, for example, an episode is filmed all about the preparation a musical artist goes through before the concert, dwelling 28 minutes on their manicures, phone conversations, doctor check-ups and random antics, and the last 30 seconds of the show is about the actual concert, which, in reality, should be the main event. So, too, have the media transformed the focus onto the outskirts of the war and what’s going on back home and not on the battlefield itself. We paint it up to look pretty to our audiences, and entertain ourselves with verbal cross-fire, wasting time we could be active for a cause.

Post-reading:
The diction Scheer employs paints vivid pictures of the “carnage” and “wreckage” attached to the war and all its implications. After finishing the article, I was left with a sense of chaos and disorganization which, Scheer emphasizes, was one of America’s weak points in its approach to the war and its plan thereafter (“Staying the course is a prescription for disaster”). Scheer did not even volunteer a potential cure and better method of operation at the end of his essay, which left the reader with an even greater sense of uncertainty and disillusionment.

After analyzing both articles, I have figured that both political parties are finally striking the same points. The conservatives have finally figured out that the reason for going to Iraq wasn’t a strong one at all. They believe that if we had held off of war and waited for a while that we may have found that our reasons were not as strongly thought out as previously mentioned. WMD’s, what WMD’s, they were nowhere to be found, and neither were any other banned weapons or substances. Had we waited for NATO and their Security Councils reports, we may have been able to figure this out before hand. Now not only do we have to rebuild the country that we have put in a tremendous situation with the destruction of a war, but we also have to rebuild the police officers and the army that we destroyed.

The point both the articles struck was why are we still there? When are we going to leave? Though the government still believes it is their part to rebuild and democratize the country, the Iraqis people have stated that they don’t want us there. More and more terrorist are popping up to continue and battle the armed forces till they finally decide to get out of the country.

But in the end, the conservatives still believe, whether they have their doubts or not, they believe the circumstances for going were good. They believe when we look back at it, it was all worth it. The liberals on the other hand, believe that we have wasted our money and our American soldiers lives on a never-ending political fight.

The War in Iraq SUCKS! I voted Kerry! We are simply not justified in being there…maybe in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. I have a good friend that left at the beginning of this month for a year worth of service in Iraq, and I’m sure it will be longer than that with Bush’s new “backdoor draft.” . I believe this war is being fought for oil, and I wish that the government would just be honest and tell us that. “Citizens of America, if we don’t go take all of this oil from Iraq, then we will lose our ranking as the world super power.” Perhaps then the American people would get behind this war.

Conservative Essay:
The conservatives are always attempting to uphold Bush’s boneheaded dream of the spread of democracy. I think Bush and his conservative allies could honestly give a damn about the spread of democracy in Iraq or anywhere else. They are concerned about what is best for the lining of their pockets, and Cheney is a prime example.

Loyola attempts to justify our going to war over false intelligence about WMD’s, but ignorance should never be an excuse of people we rely on to provide “intelligence!” He says that Hussein couldn’t prove that he didn’t have the weapons, so we had to go in and check for ourselves.

Liberal Essay:
This essay serves to disprove the Bush administrations campaign in Iraq by first arguing that most of the terrorist on the planes on 9/11 were of Saudi Arabian dissent. This seems like a valid point to me. Why are we in Iraq? Scheer goes on to say that Bush has shifted his endorsement of this war to the spread of democracy. I for one as an American feel that every country should be free to choose their own forms of government, and we should just leave them all the hell alone.

Scheer makes good use of statistics in his essay by appealing to the emotions of the reader when he speaks of thins like: “killing of innocents is now ten times higher than a year ago.” He goes on to say, “the number of war- and occupation- realted dead at an appalling 650,000…even the lowest figure in their estimate, more than 300,000 dead.” These numbers are meant to astonish, and really hit home with the reader.

Each article makes the same point, in my opinion: The US has been in Iraq for entirely too long. I completely agree. However, that doesn’t mean that people should go and call our President “pigheaded,” as Scheer alludes to do. As a matter of fact, most people in the United States do not vote, but then they get angry when things aren’t going their way. If someone wants something to change then they need to be involved in, not only the protesting, but the voting as well. America voted for Bush in the last election, so we need to at least be respectful of him. Everyone makes mistakes, but that doesn’t mean that we should attack each other. Will Iraq be okay without the US governmernt being involved any longer? Yes. Do I think we should stay in Iraq longer? No, but Bush wants to see them succeed. He has good intentions and sometimes it’s our good intention that can block our good judgment.