Research Paper on:
Why the U.S. Invasion of Iraq is Wrong

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
the Arab world toward us, and contribute to a polarized electorate at home. This paper argues that we had no business invading Iraq in the first place. Discussion In March,  2005, on the second anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq, Congressman Charles Rangel stopped to reflect on the progress of the war, which even at that time was going  badly. Rangel was "struck most by the fact that so few people have focused on the 1,500 young Americans killed and more than 11,000 maimed" (Rangel 1). He castigates the  way in which statistics are skewed to downplay the carnage: for example, non-combat incidents "are not even counted in public casualty reports," although there have been 20,000 such injuries (Rangel  1). As far as the Iraqis themselves go, they might as well not exist, since the "tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have lost their lives are barely mentioned  as anything more than collateral damage" (Rangel 1). Collateral damage is a dreadful term used to mean that a lot of people are being killed simply because theyre at the  wrong place at the wrong time. Rangel suggests that the Iraq War becomes real to people only if they lose a loved one, or know someone who has lot  a service member in the fighting (Rangel). Otherwise, the Iraq War, and the on-going mess in Afghanistan, have remained unreal to most Americans (Rangel). This isnt accidental, either, but a  deliberate attempt on the part of Bush to keep a lid on a situation that is spiraling out of control (Rangel). There are, and never were, any nuclear weapons or  WMDs; there was "no imminent threat. Saddam Hussein had no responsibility for the terrorist attack on 9-11" (Rangel 1). Those responsible for 9/11 were Saudis, and they fled to Afghanistan,