NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Case for War on Iraq In this paper I would like to express my attitude as to the war in Iraq. I think there are many reasons for waging a war in Iraq against Saddam's regime. The Saddam has always been ruthless and cruel in his attitude not only to the people outside of his country but also to his people. It can be seen in the hard economic situation in the country. People do not have enough money to buy necessary products, meanwhile he builds palaces. Saddam has ruled through a privileged elite, the minority in Iraq, Sunni Muslims to the damage of the majority Shias.
He attempted genocide Against the Kurds. In this actions, tens of thousands perished in scenes of the Holocaust. He has diverted vast oil revenues to his own and his family's use. Since 1991, Saddam has blatantly defied the UN in its attempts to enforce the conditions for the end of the Gulf war.
As it was already mentioned, Saddam's actions are described purely by the considerations and interests of his own regime and family survival. That he now constitutes an active threat to surrounding states. He is also threatening or to western states against which he might sponsor terrorist attacks. This is a very important factor to consider when explaining my pint of view. If he finances people who bring terror and death into the world, no people in the world can be in safety. Most probably, Saddam has the weapons.
Will Saddam use the weapons of mass destruction he possesses? If we think rationally, he should not. But dictators are seldom rational, even in their own long-term interests. It was not rational to fight Iran for seven years, nor to invade Kuwait. Both Mussolini and Hitler made disastrously irrational moves in their choices of foreign enemies.
Nobody can foresee what this person will do in a doomed situation. This is another reason for the need of eliminating such danger. 1 If we are to assume this war with Iraq is one of self-defense, whether pro-active or reactive, then the issue of maintaining a stable Iraq is secondary. However, the Iraq people are well educated and eager to be freed from the tyranny of Hussein. The prospects are good that Iraq will maintain a semblance of civility and democracy in the Middle East. I think, this war can be described as liberate.
It will allow people of Iraq to live in a civilized and democratic country in the future. Speaking about the perspective of after war Iraq, the most important aspect of the long-term stability of the new Iraq regime will be not through occupation, but through trade. It may appear imperialistic, but if the United States reestablishes trading ties with the Iraqis, then prosperity, and democracy will follow and continue to strengthen. Saddam Hussein's material breach of his obligations under U. N. Resolution 1441 is reason enough to support a war against Iraq.
However, there are other reasons as well. Muslim fanatics have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to murder Westerners, particularly Christians and Jews, with terrorist acts in the U. S. , Great Britain, Indonesia and elsewhere. The unpredictability of the possible actions of such people makes waging war the necessary step.
This is a doubt that even President Bush's opponents believe Hussein would hesitate to provide religious or secular terrorists with any weapons of mass destruction he possesses, including chemical and biological agents. Hussein has already used weapons of mass destruction in violation of international law. 2 It is accepted that Hussein gassed 5, 000 Iraqi Kurds and tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers in the eight-year Iraq-Iran war. British intelligence estimates that Hussein is six months to a year away from developing nuclear weapons. It is not accepted that Saddam develop nuclear weapons. If he has time to develop the nuclear bombs, no nation will find itself in safety. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw recently provided additional reasons necessitating the removal of Hussein, namely the horrendous human rights violations practiced by Hussein's government.
If we are to use the definitions presented in the question one, the answer is yes, there is a clear and reliable difference between a war of aggression and one of pre-emption. An offensive war of aggression such as the Gulf War invasion of Kuwait, the German invasion of Poland, or the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor all represent militarily unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, for the sole purpose of territorial acquisition. Whereas pre-emptive war represents the actions of a nation with a clear understanding that inaction will result in aggressive measures by an adversary. It is a war of proactive self defense. A war of aggression is one of offence and does not fall within the boundaries or definitions of a just war. 3 What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in maintaining it as a stable entity and in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?
If we are to assume this war with Iraq is one of self-defense, whether pro-active or reactive, then the issue of maintaining a stable Iraq is secondary. However, the Iraq people are well educated and eager to be freed from the tyranny of Hussein. The prospects are good that Iraq will maintain a semblance of civility and democracy in the Middle East. There are, of course, examples of regime change and stability in the world over the past 50 -to 60 years. The two obvious examples are Germany and Japan following the fall and occupation of these Axis powers after WWII.
Stable regime change and democracy need not be the established only after a hot war, but other examples exist throughout Eastern Europe. After the Cold War ended, with a victory by the West, the regimes in these nations changed and stability, while tenuous at times, continues to flourish. Too, the Latin American countries, especially in Central America, long proxies in the Cold War, have become much more stable over the past 20 years, not through occupation, but through trade. As the Bush regime continues to expand trade through out Central America, stability will continue to strength these fledgling democracies. The 12, 000 -page declaration Iraq submitted last month conspicuously failed the requirements. It offered no adequate explanation of what happened to more than 500 artillery shells containing nerve gas and 400 bombs suitable for delivering germs and toxins.
It didn't credibly account for more than two tons of material used to produce biological weapons. Where all these dangerous facilities disappeared? Maybe, they are hidden and are waiting for their turn. All the weapons must be revealed. Nations and groups of nations, including the United Nations and NATO, agree that Iraq must not be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. However, the current disagreement is about what steps should be taken to ensure that Iraq has no such weapons.
It is not up to U. N. inspectors to find the weapons; it is up to Iraq to lead the inspectors to the weapons. We must go to war now because Iraq does not intend to disarm. Waiting for the U. N.
inspectors to finish looking is a waste of time. It will also allow Iraq to build more weapons of mass destruction. World opinion does not matter. A U. S.
president should be concerned about U. S. security rather than the popularity of his actions. If the U.
S. goes into Iraq without waiting for the U. N. , the U. S. can of Iraq and thereby control the second largest source of oil in the world. The U.
S. can sell Iraq's oil to help pay for the war and occupation of Iraq. If the United Sates wait for U. N. approval, Iraq will work with terrorists to attack the U. S.
In my opinion, this could be a matter of time regarding terrorist actions against the Unites States and other nations. The United States must bomb Iraq because it will help control Al Qaeda. It will keep Al Qaeda from gaining Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It is said by the president of the United states that tacking Iraq before it can become a real and present danger to the U. S.
shows wisdom and courage. 4 The primary argument for attacking Iraq now, without U. N. support, is that waiting for U. N. support will allow Iraq to become more dangerous. Since Iraq has been contained for over a decade, many countries believe that the real motive for rushing to war now is so the U.
S. can gain control of the oil in Iraq. But I think this is not the primary reason for military intervention. The oil resources will play an essential role in rebuilding the country in after war period and also will solve the economic problems.
James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University addressed the problem of "energy security" for the United States, and noted that the US was increasingly threatened by oil shortages in the face of the inability of oil supplies to keep up with world demand. In particular the report addressed "The Threat of Iraq and Iran" to the free flow of oil out of the Middle East. It concluded that Saddam Hussein was still a threat to Middle Eastern security and still had the military capability to exercise force beyond Iraq's borders. President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets.
Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East. It is necessary to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a coalition of key allies. 5 Having counted all the factors of danger that comes from the side of Saddam's regime, it should be concluded that waging war is the necessary step in solving the problem. Fear of terrorism is the virus which should be destroyed with any possible means, as this fear will not allow the humanity to live in peace and will not let our civilization develop. Therefore, I think the war in Iraq is necessary. Bibliography: Butler, Richard.
Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security, 2000. Hiro, Dilip. Iraq: In the Eye of the Storm. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 2002. Khalil, Samir. 956. 704 Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, 1999. Ritter, Scott. 956. 70443 Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem Once and For All, 1999.
Timmerman, Kenneth. Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, New York: The Viking Press, 1997.
Free research essays on topics related to: middle east, nuclear weapons, war with iraq, saddam hussein, weapons of mass destruction
Research essay sample on Weapons Of Mass Destruction War With Iraq
