The war introduced several technologically advanced weapon systems. As well, the United States forged a broad-based international coalition that confronted Iraq militarily strategy.
In article 2 it quotes “ Iraqi’s tyrant has weapons of mass destruction and has links with Bin Laden and Al-Quaida” this is another reason why the war started was because Saddam is branded a tyrant and a man with weapons of mass destruction and America wants to get rid of him and the weapons.
Article 1 was written before the war. This article was written because Andrew Cooper (the journalist of this article) wanted to inform the citizens of what was to come. For example “probable destruction and carnage lies with ordinarily decent”. Although halfway through the article Andrew supports Iraq by saying “ Who dropped two atom bombs on a civilian population?”. Near the end of this article, Andrew evens out the bias out a bit by say that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown and this will lead to the Iraqi population living a normal life in peace.
The articles discuss this issue of going to war. Article 1 is by Andrew Cooper who comes from Meir in. In this article he talks about the issue on going to war. Andrew is very cynical how he says “ America and British leaders present a sequel- Gulf War part 2”. In away he is mocking the war and what is going on. The beginning of the first paragraph is very bias because he says that they are going to war for there own profits. A couple of paragraphs down Andrew make a key point on why not approaching Israel or Iran. These countries are as bigger threat than Iraq. Halfway through the article Andrew quotes “Hussein’s evil dictatorship, his quest for horrific weapons, and his history of human rights abuses precisely because our own countries criminal pasts”. In away Andrew sticks up of Saddam because in its not just Saddam who has abused human rights, it’s the American’s and English who have had these “brutal regimes” to. Near the end of the article Andrew quotes “Saddam Hussein is a vicious despot and sooner he is overthrown by the Iraqi people, the better Iraq would be”. He says this purely to level out the bias and be in the middle, not on Saddam or George W Bush’s side. In this article his view is rather against the war. Examples for the reason of been against the war are when he quotes “Originality read human tragedy”. This quotes is very against the war because human death happens in wars and he does not want this to happen. Another quote against the war is “ We, the public, understand all of this but yet do nothing about it”. This quote tells the reader to do something about this war and not let the war to go ahead.
He supports this view in a number of ways. Some examples of the argument he uses are when he says “Hussein’s evil dictatorship, his quest for horrific weapons, and his history of human rights abuses precisely because our own countries criminal pasts” and backs this point very well when he says “How many brutal regimes has Britain and America not only ignored, but in many cases, actively supported? Who dropped two atom bombs on a civilian population?” This is backed well because although Saddam Hussein has done bad things in the past, the American have done even worse things by dropping nuclear atom bombs on incant people and ignoring the important things in the world.
Article 2 is by R Davies from Trent Vale. In this article he discuses the fact that Saddam Hussein has all these weapons of mass destruction and no one has done anything to stop him deploying them. In the First couple of paragraphs, R Davies explains the fact that Colin Powell’s damning evidence to the UN about the accommodation of this brutal dictator should be sorted out and that he should not be ruling the country. He uses words such as “sit back” and “accommodate” to make his point clear on what not is been done to over throw Saddam. Halfway through the article R Davies gives a number of statements Colin Powell stated in his speech. “Iraq had not accounted for 8,500 litres of anthrax it had in 1995” and “ Iraq was testing chemical agents on death row prisoners”. These are just a few of the things R Davies stated in this section.
The viewpoint of R Davies is that he wants American troops and British troops to go to war in Iraq simply because of the evidence that Colin Powell had presented in his speech. R Davies has a very strong viewpoint on going to war. It can be seen in the following lines “On hearing Colin Powell’s damning evidence to the UN, are we still to sit back and accommodate this brutal tyrant?” R Davies is very intimidated about Saddam regime, as seen in the quote and he wants something to be don’t about it. His view through out the whole article is concentrated on going to war and the UN, Colin Powell and Dr Blix (A member of the UN) are making R Davies more certain that the war was going to happen by how they come out with all the there statements about Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and cant prove that they have any.
He supports this view in a number of ways. There is basically one example he uses which is “On hearing Colin Powell’s damning evidence to the UN, are we still to sit back and accommodate this brutal tyrant?” He backs this up extremely well by using the information from Colin Powell’s speech and the UN to make his point on why Saddam is so brutal, can’t be trusted with anthrax and weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam cant run his own country. Here is a example, “Iraqi scientists were been held under house arrest and simply not allowed to talk to the UN inspectors unless accompanied by Saddam’s henchmen”. Examples like this back up R Davies’s commitment of going to war. Colin Powell’s speech supports R Davies view.
There are examples of bias in the articles, as the writes only express their own views or use arguments that only support their own views. In article 1 there is not too much bias, because Andrew Cooper has put across both points of view.
In article 2 there is bias shown. Throughout the article R Davies is biased because he does not show differences of opinion. He does not even appear to consider the other argument and fills the whole article with his pro-war speech, almost like a rallying cry. Examples of bias shown right at the beginning of this article “Are we still to sit back and accommodate this brutal tyrant?” This shows bias because R Davies has his own point of view right at the beginning and does not show another point of why we should not be going to war. This is one of many quotes throughout the article that shows he is clearly for the war in Iraq and that he is going to provide his point of view, whether the reader likes it or not.
My opinion in relation to this issue is that I did not want this war to happen because the war has not succeeded. Tony Blair and George W Bush have both lied about the weapons of mass destruction. They have made the wrong decision. The decision should have only been made when they finally found the weapons of mass destruction and they are still looking for them today. All that the war has brought for the Iraqi’s is devastation and the whole country is out if control. The main man Tony Blair and George W Bush wanted to capture is Saddam Hussein, but he is still not captured. I think that the whole war was a frailer because Tony Blair and George W Bush have not met the goals and they have just gone into Iraq killing innocent children just for something that was not there to be found. I also think that Saddam was not in anyway involved with the al-quaida. I think that it was just because Tony Blair and George W Bush wanted the public to be on their side because of what Osama Bin Laden did on September 11.
I also think that America and Britain are having this war because of the oil that Iraq holds. A lot of money can be made for the flagging fortunes of both the dollar and the pound if they get hold of the oil currently owned by Iraqi leaders. Surely the thought of the billions of dollars that can possibly be made has entered the head of both Bush and Blair and I strongly believe that this is one of their ulterior motives, so overthrowing Saddam and releasing Iraq from his tyrannical reign of terror is the main reason for this war, as well as the apparent threat of his weapons of mass destruction but surely behind the goodness, there is an ulterior motive or two lying behind.
So to conclude my view, the war on Iraq began interesting, a lot of opinionated views were brought forward and a lot of tabloid and media speculation was rife as the world wondered whether Bush and Blair would continue their Batman and Robin style double act to rid the free world of the bad guy known as Saddam, as it turns out they got the backing, finally, of the rest of the UN and proceeded to go to war, causing many people, myself included, to deliberate on why the war was necessary.
