 |
| Adoption Law | Child Custody | Child Support | Divorce Law | Family Law | Marriage Law |
Family Violence IndicatorA designation that resides in the Federal Case Registry (FCR) placed on a participant in a case or order by a State or Tribe that indicates a person is associated with child abuse or domestic violence. It is used to prevent disclosure of the location of a party and/or a child believed by the State or Tribe to be at risk of family violence. Question: Family violence question? I have been in a relationship with a man for seven years during this time we had a child together who is now three years old. I have been unhappy for most of the seven years and was always looking for a way out. About two months ago I was finally able to get him out of my home. I am currently pursueing child support and they asked me to check a box on the application if there was any family violence indicator. For years I believed I suffered from emotional, mental, verbal and physical since he did push me down once. The application was specific and spoke only of physical abuse. I may have to go into court and I do not want to look like a woman scorned but i have no way to prove mental, verbal or emotional abuse. Should I just check the box that I have experineced abuse? I ask b/c I may have to go into court and I am not ready to face him b/c he is manipulative when it comes to dealing with our son and i cannot lose the little help i recieve until I get some support. Question: Could Child care be linked to future violence in society thanks to the femi extremist revolution? Child Care Linked To Assertive, Noncompliant, and Aggressive Behaviors
Vast Majority of Children Within Normal Range
The more time children spent in child care from birth to age four-and-a-half, the more adults tended to rate them, both at age four-and-a-half and at kindergarten, as less likely to get along with others, as more assertive, as disobedient, and as aggressive, according to a study appearing in the July/August issue of Child Development.
However, the researchers cautioned that for the vast majority of children, the levels of the behaviors reported were well within the normal range.
In fact, a mother's sensitivity to her child was a better indicator of reported problem behaviors than was time in child care, with more sensitive mothering being linked to less problem behaviors. Higher maternal education and family income also predicted lower levels of children's problem behaviors..
The findings are from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.
"It's important to put these findings in perspective," said Duane Alexander, M.D., Director of the NICHD. "The amount of time in child care is one of several family and child care factors linked to children's behaviors, both positive and negative."
The NICHD launched the study of early child care in 1991. The 27 researchers conducting the study have been following the development of more than 1000 children from across the United States. The children were enrolled in the study at birth and come from an ethnically and economically diverse sample of families. In addition to focusing on time in child care, the current article focused on several other aspects of the child care experience: the quality of the child care arrangement, the proportion of time that the child was in a child care center, the proportion of time that the child was cared for in a group setting, and the number of times that the mother reported that the child started a new child care arrangement.
In the current article, the researchers describe how child care experiences in the first four-and-a-half years of the children's lives relate to children's social competence and behavior problems, when the children were four-and-a-half years old, and later, when they reached kindergarten.
The study measured children's social behavior by having mothers, child care providers and teachers complete standardized ratings of children's behavior problems and social competence-their ability to get along with children and adults and their ability to follow social rules. Information about the number of hours the children were in child care was obtained from the mothers every 3-4 months.
The link between time in child care and problem behavior was greater than the link between infant temperament and problem behavior or maternal depression and problem behavior. This link between time in child care and problem behavior was also greater for children in center-based care than for children in other types of care.
The study authors noted that, of the children who displayed problem behaviors, the majority were well within the normal range. A small proportion of children showed levels of problem behavior that should be monitored to see if they developed into more serious problems. The proportion of children showing these higher levels of problem behavior is commensurate with the proportion of children in the U.S. population as a whole who also display these problems.
The link between time in child care and problem behavior occurred across all family backgrounds and all types and quality of care. The authors added that the time in child care during infancy did not appear to have a greater bearing on the children's behavior than did the time they spent in care after infancy. The researchers also found evidence that children who experienced better quality child care-in which caregivers provided intellectual stimulation and were warm, positive, and sensitive to child behavior-had fewer child caregiver/teacher-reported problem behaviors and conflict than did children who experienced lower quality care. The researchers noted, however, that high quality child care did not eliminate the link between hours in care and behavior problems.
The researchers could find no threshold of child-care hours above which problem behaviors were especially likely to emerge.
To illustrate the reported findings that were based on the information from the group as a whole, the researchers classified the children into four groups, based on the amount of time they spent in child care:
16 percent of children were in child care an average of 0-9 hours a week
38 percent for 10-29 hours
36 percent for 30-45 hours
10 percent for more than 45 hours a week.
In each of these groups, a minority of the children had a high score on behavior problems. However, the percent of children with high scores increased with the increase in the number of hours children spent in child care.
Children were rated by mothers and teachers on items such as: child demands a lot of attention; argues a lot; bragging and boasting; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroys things belonging to others; disobedient at home; disobedient at school; gets into many fights; lying or cheating; screams a lot.
One of the important findings of this study is that the strongest predictor of how well a child behaves was a feature of maternal parenting that the researchers described as sensitivity--how attuned a mother is to a child's wants and needs. The behaviors of the sensitive mother are child centered; the sensitive mother is aware of the child's needs, moods, interests, and capabilities. She allows this awareness to guide her interactions with her child. Children of more sensitive mothers were more competent socially, less likely to engage in disruptive behavior, and less likely to be involved in conflicts with their caregivers and teachers.
Similarly, children whose parents had higher incomes and who were more highly educated also were more socially competent and less likely to engage in problem behaviors.
The study authors noted that their study was not designed to prove a cause and effect relationship. That is, the study cannot prove whether spending more time in child care causes children to have more problem behaviors. The behavior problems the researchers documented might be due to some other characteristic of the children or of their environment. Accompanying editorials in the July/August issue of Child Development offer possible explanations.
Findings previously reported from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development showed that more time in care predicted more problem behavior among two-year olds, but not among three-year olds; less sensitive maternal behavior and less harmonious mother-child interaction when children were 6-36 months of age; as well as higher rates of insecure attachment to the mother if the mother's parenting was relatively insensitive.
Preliminary findings pertaining to the research questions posed and answered by the current article were presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development in April of 2001. In the future, the researchers plan to focus on the relation between hours spent in child care and children's behavior during the school years.
###
The NICHD is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the biomedical research arm of the federal government. NIH is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The NICHD sponsors research on development, before and after birth; maternal, child, and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. NICHD publications, as well as information about the Institute, are available from the NICHD Web site, http://www.nichd.nih.gov, or from the NICHD Information Resource Center, 1-800-370-2943; e-mail [email protected].…
Child Care Linked To Assertive, Noncompliant, and Aggressive Behaviors
Vast Majority of Children Within Normal Range
The more time children spent in child care from birth to age four-and-a-half, the more adults tended to rate them, both at age four-and-a-half and at kindergarten, as less likely to get along with others, as more assertive, as disobedient, and as aggressive, according to a study appearing in the July/August issue of Child Development.
However, the researchers cautioned that for the vast majority of children, the levels of the behaviors reported were well within the normal range.
In fact, a mother's sensitivity to her child was a better indicator of reported problem behaviors than was time in child care, with more sensitive mothering being linked to less problem behaviors. Higher maternal education and family income also predicted lower levels of children's problem behaviors..
The findings are from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.
"It's important to put these findings in perspective," said Duane Alexander, M.D., Director of the NICHD. "The amount of time in child care is one of several family and child care factors linked to children's behaviors, both positive and negative."
The NICHD launched the study of early child care in 1991. The 27 researchers conducting the study have been following the development of more than 1000 children from across the United States. The children were enrolled in the study at birth and come from an ethnically and economically diverse sample of families. In addition to focusing on time in child care, the current article focused on several other aspects of the child care experience: the quality of the child care arrangement, the proportion of time that the child was in a child care center, the proportion of time that the child was cared for in a group setting, and the number of times that the mother reported that the child started a new child care arrangement.
In the current article, the researchers describe how child care experiences in the first four-and-a-half years of the children's lives relate to children's social competence and behavior problems, when the children were four-and-a-half years old, and later, when they reached kindergarten.
The study measured children's social behavior by having mothers, child care providers and teachers complete standardized ratings of children's behavior problems and social competence-their ability to get along with children and adults and their ability to follow social rules. Information about the number of hours the children were in child care was obtained from the mothers every 3-4 months.
The link between time in child care and problem behavior was greater than the link between infant temperament and problem behavior or maternal depression and problem behavior. This link between time in child care and problem behavior was also greater for children in center-based care than for children in other types of care.
The study authors noted that, of the children who displayed problem behaviors, the majority were well within the normal range. A small proportion of children showed levels of problem behavior that should be monitored to see if they developed into more serious problems. The proportion of children showing these higher levels of problem behavior is commensurate with the proportion of children in the U.S. population as a whole who also display these problems.
The link between time in child care and problem behavior occurred across all family backgrounds and all types and quality of care. The authors added that the time in child care during infancy did not appear to have a greater bearing on the children's behavior than did the time they spent in care after infancy. The researchers also found evidence that children who experienced better quality child care-in which caregivers provided intellectual stimulation and were warm, positive, and sensitive to child behavior-had fewer child caregiver/teacher-reported problem behaviors and conflict than did children who experienced lower quality care. The researchers noted, however, that high quality child care did not eliminate the link between hours in care and behavior problems.
The researchers could find no threshold of child-care hours above which problem behaviors were especially likely to emerge.
To illustrate the reported findings that were based on the information from the group as a whole, the researchers classified the children into four groups, based on the amount of time they spent in child care:
16 percent of children were in child care an average of 0-9 hours a week
38 percent for 10-29 hours
36 percent for 30-45 hours
10 percent for more than 45 hours a week.
In each of these groups, a minority of the children had a high score on behavior problems. However, the percent of children with high scores increased with the increase in the number of hours children spent in child care.
Children were rated by mothers and teachers on items such as: child demands a lot of attention; argues a lot; bragging and boasting; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroys things belonging to others; disobedient at home; disobedient at school; gets into many fights; lying or cheating; screams a lot.
One of the important findings of this study is that the strongest predictor of how well a child behaves was a feature of maternal parenting that the researchers described as sensitivity--how attuned a mother is to a child's wants and needs. The behaviors of the sensitive mother are child centered; the sensitive mother is aware of the child's needs, moods, interests, and capabilities. She allows this awareness to guide her interactions with her child. Children of more sensitive mothers were more competent socially, less likely to engage in disruptive behavior, and less likely to be involved in conflicts with their caregivers and teachers.
Similarly, children whose parents had higher incomes and who were more highly educated also were more socially competent and less likely to engage in problem behaviors.
The study authors noted that their study was not designed to prove a cause and effect relationship. That is, the study cannot prove whether spending more time in child care causes children to have more problem behaviors. The behavior problems the researchers documented might be due to some other characteristic of the children or of their environment. Accompanying editorials in the July/August issue of Child Development offer possible explanations.
Findings previously reported from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development showed that more time in care predicted more problem behavior among two-year olds, but not among three-year olds; less sensitive maternal behavior and less harmonious mother-child interaction when children were 6-36 months of age; as well as higher rates of insecure attachment to the mother if the mother's parenting was relatively insensitive.
Preliminary findings pertaining to the research questions posed and answered by the current article were presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development in April of 2001. In the future, the researchers plan to focus on the relation between hours spent in child care and children's behavior during the school years.
###
The NICHD is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the biomedical research arm of the federal government. NIH is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The NICHD sponsors research on development, before and after birth; maternal, child, and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. NICHD publications, as well as information about the Institute, are available from the NICHD Web site, http://www.nichd.nih.gov, or from the NICHD Information Resource Center, 1-800-370-2943; e-mail [email protected].… Question: Animal Abuse! Help fast plz? its supposed to be a persuasive essay
plz make it like a 7th grader's wrote it, u dont have to rewrite it jsut tell me pwich parts to edit
Many citizens believe that America's animal cruelty laws are not tough enough and that people who participate in illegal animal fighting or other forms of animal abuse should be treated in the same manner as those who abuse humans. Do you believe that the consequences for severe animal abuse should be the same as for human abuse?
Do you know how many animals get abused everyday? Well, I can tell you that more animals get abused than ones that are being treated well.
Some people believe that human and animal abusers shouldn’t be treated the same way. Well obviously, they’re dead wrong! When it comes to abusing, it doesn’t matter if it’s an animal or a human being. A person that does any kind of a violent act towards an animal or participates in illegal animal fighting is guilty of a Class H felony and should be treated just like humans’ abusers as well.
Cruel acts against animals are not just an animal protection issue. Research confirms a strong correlation between violence toward animals and violence toward humans. It is widely recognized that perpetrators of violent behavior are more likely to have participated in violent acts against children and animals. Parents, community leaders, prosecutors, judges, and other individuals concerned with violence are recognizing the importance of animal cruelty as an indicator of disturbed family relationships and future aggressive behavior toward humans. Although fifteen of the 50 states now make animal abuse a felony with Louisiana having the toughest law, maximum prison sentence of 10 years. However, there is still much work to do.
Humans and animals are both living creatures, but humans are chosen to have dominion over animals. You keep hearing about animal cruelty cases in the news. In all aspects of it, one of our biggest problems as a society is that people are not being held accountable for anything they do. However, I believe that it’s just like the golden rule, treat animals as you would want to be treated."
thank you so much
God bless you all.
ughhhhh pllzzzzzzzzzzzz its worth a 100 pts!!! ='[
wen u can help why shouldnt you? :{ Question: did i cite my internet info correctly? Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. How would you feel if someone in your family was brutally murdered by an adolescent and that the murderer received a mere slap in the wrist by the justice system? Would a few years in prison be enough of a punishment for their crimes? Some argue that it is only reasonable to treat child delinquents as children in a much more lenient manner than adult criminal. Are children that commit adult crimes less guilty then adults that commit the same crime? This raises the question, should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults? I believe so, children that commit a crime should be charged as adults. Therefore, justice should be give in any case regardless of a person’s age.
Juveniles under age of 14 charged with crimes should be tried as adults, the crime, not the perpetrators age, should be the determining factor in the sentencing of a criminal. Many argue that just the mere fact that the culprits are children should be reason enough why they should not be charged as adults. My opponents believe that there should be some sensitivity towards the fact that a 14-year-old is not an adult. “It's almost as if we've lost our bearings in jumping to the conclusion that 14-year-olds are simply small adults. They are not small adults. And it's incorrect as well to jump to the conclusion that when a juvenile commits a heinous crime like the murder in this case, that they're somehow magically transformed overnight into an adult.” stated Marsha Levick, a legal director for the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia state during recent New Hour interview. The reality is that the result of a heinous crime remains the same, no matter how old the individual that commit’s the felony is. Our justice system must hold perpetrators responsible for their actions. If a juvenile kills your son does the fact that the killer was a young child make the crime less horrible and less hurtful to you and your family? Age should not be a factor in criminal cases, people should receive the adequate sentence for there crimes and not for their age. If someone decides to commit crimes that are usually committed by adults then they should therefore receive the consequences of their actions the same as an adult would. Someone’s age does not make a crime less horrendous nor erroneous.
In addition, these young delinquent usually possess motives when committing their crimes, if they have the adult mentality to do an adult crime, it is only logical and fair that they are punished likewise. To say that a juvenile may not "understand their circumstances" or may “not have knowledge of having done anything wrong” is shocking! Kids today are more sophisticated at a younger age; they understand the implications of violence and how to use violent weapons. It is absurd to argue that a modern child, who sees the effect of violence around them every day in the news , while playing violent video games, on TV, while watching violent movies, etcetera. To say that a kid does not understand what killing really is is outrageous. The fact that child killers know how to load and shoot a gun is an indicator that they understand exactly what they are doing. “A 14-year-old does not have the level of maturity, thought process, decision-making, experience, or wisdom that a 24-year-old presumably has.” said Judge Thomas Edwards, the presiding judge of the Juvenile Court of Santa Clara County. Lets be reasonable here; If a child’s mind is strong enough to contemplate and actually executing a crime with equal success as that of an adult then there is no difference between an adult delinquent and an under aged criminal; the age may be different but the mentalities are the same between the two criminals.
Another reason why young criminals should be tried as adults is for the fact that the Juvenile court system has failed society and the children that they are supposed to reform. The juvenile court system is too lenient and young felons know it. Teenagers know that if they are brought to court, found guilty of a crime as serious such as murder, the judge will simply sentences them to two years in a juvenile facility, after which they will be free with not even a criminal record to follow them. These is are light sentences received for serious crimes it is as being a mere slap on the wrist it is ridiculous; a greater action should be taken against these criminals. Children get away with more crimes if they are charged as minors and they hardly ever learn their lessons. A recent report of Juvenile crime basic statistics by Frontline showed that “The nation's juvenile courts disposed of more than 1.7 million delinquency cases in 1997. ("Delinquency" offenses are those committed by a juvenile which would be crimes if committed by an adult). Two thousand of those were for criminal homicide, 6,500 for forcible rape, and 67,900 for aggravate
Question: can someone please edit and let me know what they think about my argumentative essay please!!!? Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. How would you feel if someone in your family was brutally murdered by an adolescent and that the murderer received a mere slap in the wrist by the justice system? Would a few years in prison be enough of a punishment for their crimes? Some argue that it is only reasonable to treat child delinquents as children in a much lenient way than adult criminal. Are children that commit adult crimes less guilty then adults that commit the same crime? This raises the question, should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults? I believe so, children that commit a crime should be charged as adults. Justice should be give in any case regardless of a person’s age.
Juveniles under age of 14 charged with crimes should be tried as adults, the crime, not the perpetrators age, should be the determining factor in the sentencing of a criminal. Many argue that just the mere fact that the culprits are children should be reason enough why they should not be charged as adults. They believe that there should be some sensitivity towards the fact that a 14-year-old is not an adult. “It's almost as if we've lost our bearings in jumping to the conclusion that 14-year-olds are simply small adults. They are not small adults. And it's incorrect as well to jump to the conclusion that when a juvenile commits a heinous crime like the murder in this case, that they're somehow magically transformed overnight into an adult.” stated Marsha Levick, a legal director for the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia state during recent New Hour interview. The reality is that the result of a heinous crime remains the same, no matter how old the individual that commits it is. Our justice system must hold perpetrators responsible for their actions. If a juvenile kills your son does the fact that the killer was a young child make the crime less horrible and less hurtful to you and your family? Age should not be a factor in criminal cases, people should receive the adequate sentence for there crimes and not for their age. If someone decides to commit crimes that are usually committed by adults then they should therefore receive the consequences of their actions the same as an adult would. Someone’s age does not make a crime less horrendous and erroneous.
In addition, these young delinquent usually possess motives when committing their crimes, if they have the adult mentality to do an adult crime, it is only logical and fair that they are punished likewise. To say that a juvenile may not "understand their circumstances" or may “not have knowledge of having done anything wrong” is outrageous! Kids today are more sophisticated at a younger age; they understand the implications of violence and how to use violent weapons. It is absurd to argue that a modern child, who sees the effect of violence around them every day in the news , while playing violent video games, on TV, while watching violent movies etcetera. To say that a kid does not understand what killing really is contemptible. The fact that child killers know how to load and shoot a gun is an indicator that they understand exactly what they are doing. “A 14-year-old does not have the level of maturity, thought process, decision-making, experience, or wisdom that a 24-year-old presumably has.” said Judge Thomas Edwards the presiding judge of the Juvenile Court of Santa Clara County. Lets be reasonable here; If a child’s mind is strong enough to contemplate and actually executing a crime with equal success as that of an adult then there is no difference between an adult delinquent and an under aged criminal; the age may be different but the mentalities are the same between the two criminals.
Another reason why young criminals should be tried as adults is for the fact that the Juvenile court system has failed society and the children that they are supposed to reform. The juvenile court system is too lenient and young felons know it. Teenagers know that if they are brought to court, found guilty of a crime as serious such as murder, the judge will simply sentences them to two years in a juvenile facility, after which they will be free with not even a criminal record to follow them. These is are light sentences received for serious crimes it is as being a mere slap on the wrist it is ridiculous; a greater action should be taken against these criminals. Children get away with more crimes if they are charged as minors and they hardly ever learn their lessons. A recent report of Juvenile crime basic statistics by Frontline showed that “The nation's juvenile courts disposed of more than 1.7 million delinquency cases in 1997. ("Delinquency" offenses are those committed by a juvenile which would be crimes if committed by an adult). Two thousand of those were for criminal homicide, 6,500 for forcible rape, and 67,900 for aggravated assault. More than 180,000 were Question: can someone edit my argumentative essay please!!!!!? Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. How would you feel if someone in your family was brutally murdered by an adolescent and that the murderer received a mere slap in the wrist by the justice system? Would a few years in prison be enough of a punishment for their crimes? Some argue that it is only reasonable to treat child delinquents as children in a much lenient way than adult criminal. Are children that commit adult crimes less guilty then adults that commit the same crime? This raises the question, should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults? I believe so, children that commit a crime should be charged as adults. Justice should be give in any case regardless of a person’s age.
Juveniles under age of 14 charged with crimes should be tried as adults, the crime, not the perpetrators age, should be the determining factor in the sentencing of a criminal. Many argue that just the mere fact that the culprits are children should be reason enough why they should not be charged as adults. They believe that there should be some sensitivity towards the fact that a 14-year-old is not an adult. “It's almost as if we've lost our bearings in jumping to the conclusion that 14-year-olds are simply small adults. They are not small adults. And it's incorrect as well to jump to the conclusion that when a juvenile commits a heinous crime like the murder in this case, that they're somehow magically transformed overnight into an adult.” stated Marsha Levick, a legal director for the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia state during recent New Hour interview. The reality is that the result of a heinous crime remains the same, no matter how old the individual that commits it is. Our justice system must hold perpetrators responsible for their actions. If a juvenile kills your son does the fact that the killer was a young child make the crime less horrible and less hurtful to you and your family? Age should not be a factor in criminal cases, people should receive the adequate sentence for there crimes and not for their age. If someone decides to commit crimes that are usually committed by adults then they should therefore receive the consequences of their actions the same as an adult would. Someone’s age does not make a crime less horrendous and erroneous.
In addition, these young delinquent usually possess motives when committing their crimes, if they have the adult mentality to do an adult crime, it is only logical and fair that they are punished likewise. To say that a juvenile may not "understand their circumstances" or may “not have knowledge of having done anything wrong” is outrageous! Kids today are more sophisticated at a younger age; they understand the implications of violence and how to use violent weapons. It is absurd to argue that a modern child, who sees the effect of violence around them every day in the news , while playing violent video games, on TV, while watching violent movies etcetera. To say that a kid does not understand what killing really is contemptible. The fact that child killers know how to load and shoot a gun is an indicator that they understand exactly what they are doing. “A 14-year-old does not have the level of maturity, thought process, decision-making, experience, or wisdom that a 24-year-old presumably has.” said Judge Thomas Edwards the presiding judge of the Juvenile Court of Santa Clara County. Lets be reasonable here; If a child’s mind is strong enough to contemplate and actually executing a crime with equal success as that of an adult then there is no difference between an adult delinquent and an under aged criminal; the age may be different but the mentalities are the same between the two criminals.
Another reason why young criminals should be tried as adults is for the fact that the Juvenile court system has failed society and the children that they are supposed to reform. The juvenile court system is too lenient and young felons know it. Teenagers know that if they are brought to court, found guilty of a crime as serious such as murder, the judge will simply sentences them to two years in a juvenile facility, after which they will be free with not even a criminal record to follow them. These is are light sentences received for serious crimes it is as being a mere slap on the wrist it is ridiculous; a greater action should be taken against these criminals. Children get away with more crimes if they are charged as minors and they hardly ever learn their lessons. A recent report of Juvenile crime basic statistics by Frontline showed that “The nation's juvenile courts disposed of more than 1.7 million delinquency cases in 1997. ("Delinquency" offenses are those committed by a juvenile which would be crimes if committed by an adult). Two thousand of those were for criminal homicide, 6,500 for forcible rape, and 67,900 for aggravated assault. M Question: help me out here please(:? can u please rewrite this in your own words, for another article.
The Iraq War,[32] referred to by the US military as Operation Iraqi Freedom,[33] is an ongoing[34][35] military campaign which began, with no declaration of war[36], on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by a multinational force led by troops from the United States and the United Kingdom.[37]
Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat to their security and that of their coalition allies.[38][39][40] United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD.[41][42][43][44] At the time Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, adviced the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and that the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved within "months"[41] if Iraq remained cooperative[45]. Nevertheless, the US government announced that "diplomacy has failed"[46], abruptly advised the UN weapons inspectors to immediately pull out of Iraq[47] and decided to go to war.
After the invasion, the US-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted.[48] Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been the pretext for the invasion.[49] Some US officials also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda,[50] but no evidence of any collaborative relationship was ever found.[51][52]
Other reasons for the invasion stated by US officials included Iraq's financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers,[53] Iraqi government human rights abuses (although these abuses were just as bad when Iraq was a US ally),[54] and an effort on the part of the coalition forces to spread democracy in the country and region (although US ally Saudi Arabia was allowed to remain a dictatorship).[55] Some officials admitted Iraq's oil reserves were a factor in the decision to invade,[56][57][58][59][60] but other officials then denied this.[61][62]
The invasion of Iraq led to an occupation and the eventual capture of President Hussein, who was later executed by the new Iraqi government. Violence against coalition forces and among various sectarian groups soon led to the Iraqi insurgency, strife between many Sunni and Shia Iraqi groups, and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq.[63][64] The number of Iraqis killed through 2007 ranges from "a conservative cautious minimum" of more than 85,000 civilians[65][66] to a survey estimate of more than 1,000,000 people.[28]
UNHCR estimates the war uprooted 4.7 million Iraqis through April 2008 (about 16% of the population of Iraq), two million of whom had fled to neighbouring countries[67] fleeing a humanitarian situation that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement described in March 2008 as "among the most critical in the world".[68] In June 2008, US Department of Defense officials claimed security and economic indicators began to show signs of improvement in what they hailed as significant and fragile gains.[69] In August 2008, Iraq was fifth on the Failed States Index.[70]
The Coalition started to shrink as early as 2004 when 9 countries, including Spain, pulled their forces out. Later withdrawals have continued leaving United States as the sole country with troops on the ground by mid-2009.[71][72] In late 2008, the US and Iraqi governments approved a Status of Forces Agreement effective through January 1, 2012.[73] The Iraqi Parliament also ratified a Strategic Framework Agreement with the U.S, aimed at ensuring cooperation in constitutional rights, threat deterrence, education,energy development, and other areas.
In late February 2009, new US President Barack Obama announced an 18-month withdrawal window for "combat forces", leaving behind 30,000 to 50,000 troops "to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to provide intelligence and surveillance". General Ray Odierno, the top US military commander in Iraq, said he believes all US troops will be out of the country by the end of 2011,while British forces ended combat operations on April 30, 2009. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said he supports the accelerated pullout of US forces.
ingnore the numbers like this [1] .... etc.
|
|||||||
