• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

I have chosen to debate whether the decision to attack Iraq was indeed a mistake or whether this war was needed to end many years of pain, trouble and suffering for the people of Iraq and the Middle East.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

I have chosen to debate whether the decision to attack Iraq was indeed a mistake or whether this war was needed to end many years of pain, trouble and suffering for the people of Iraq and the Middle East. At present, I believe that the decision was indeed a mistake and the problem that was supposed to have been present could have been easily dealt with in much more suitable ways that did not involve the bloodshed and heartbreak of millions. When this decision to attack Iraq was finalised and the troops mobilised, the viewpoint of the public of Great Britain and America dismissed as unimportant. The main cause of this war was behaviour of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the ways in which his people were treated. Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq until 2003 and although he was the alleged culprit of the September 11th attacks (which was never proved). He tortured his subjects, killed his own family, and kept weapons of mass destruction to induce terror on to the global community. However, any trace of even a single chemical or biological weapon of mass destruction has not yet been discovered. ...read more.

Middle

These "friendly fire" attacks were not the only cause of innocent death. During the war, many accidents ended in intense injury or fatalities of soldiers in combat. There were accidents with weapons, vehicles; he list is endless. The question is- would these deaths have taken place if we did not go to war? No, there would be mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters that had their family there with them instead of them being brutally killed in an accident and living on memories, wishing they weren't killed in an unjust war. The administration has argued at great length that a U.S. invasion and "regime change" in Iraq would mark the greatest success in the war against terrorism so far. Why this is so has never been made entirely clear. It is said that Saddam's hostility toward the United States somehow sustains and invigorates the terrorist threat to America. Saddam's elimination would thus greatly weaken international terrorism and its capacity to attack the United States. There simply is no evidence that this is the case. If anything, the opposite is true. From what we know of al Qaeda and other such organizations, the objective of Islamic extremists is to overthrow any government in the Islamic world that does not adhere to a fundamentalist version of Islam. ...read more.

Conclusion

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the current leadership has a principled objection to dictatorial rule in Iraq. Besides, the United States had developed close ties with the post-Soviet dictatorships in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan -- all ruled by Stalinist dictators who once served the Soviet empire. Moreover, there certainly is nothing even remotely democratic about Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, two of America's other close allies in the region. Other motives must be at work. Control of Iraq could give the United States de facto control over the Persian Gulf area and two-thirds of the world's oil -- an unrivalled prize in the historic human struggle for power and wealth. Perhaps these ulterior motives do justify war on Iraq, even if the three stated reasons do not. If that is the case, the leaders should have made this claim to the public, and let us determine if we wanted such a war. Moreover, the leaders of this world should have listened to the United Nations and gave more time for through investigations of the country before they went and launched an attack to end a regime of terror and begin what they thought would be happiness but was actually more terror for all those involved. Montgomeryshire Essay To Attack Iraq Was A Mistake. - 1 - ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. US President George Bush labelled Iran and Iraq as part of an "axis of ...

    carried on under Yeltsin, to build a nuclear reactor and train Iran's physicists and technicians.19 Both Russia and China, under US pressure, have publicly stated that they intend to scale back aid to Iran's nuclear programme, fearing that Iran is attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons.

  2. The Prelude to the 1975 War and the Cairo Agreement.

    While the speedy collapse of Shiite SLA units was expected, IDF military planners had assumed that predominantly Druze and Christian units in the more heterogeneous eastern and western sectors would remain intact. The rapid collapse of the SLA appears to have been a result of several factors.

  1. The role of Saddam Hussain in serving the aims of America in the Middle ...

    various types and in both military and civilian fields, this strategic commodity was no longer a mere commercial commodity but a vital substance of extreme importance. This led to the competition changing from a mere commercial competition between the Western oil companies to a struggle between the states to which these companies belonged in order to dominate all the oilfields.

  2. The foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East.

    (Source: www.representativepress.org) America thus ultimately supported a regime, which in its own declarations believed that the Arab nation is an indivisible political and economic unit and that no Arab country can live apart from the others. This proved to be totally contradictory to America's own foreign policy and interest in the region.

  1. The United Nations and the Iraq Conflict

    While the Security Council did not explicitly authorize the Iraq War, based on the language of Resolution 1441 (passed November 8, 2002), and the resolutions produced within the Council and practices that preceded it (Resolutions 687 and 678, passed in the early 1990s as a result of the Gulf War,

  2. Should We Go To War With Iraq? - Discursive Essay

    Various species of water buffalo are bred in the marshlands, and rural people raise sheep, goats, and cattle. Iraq had a population of more than 19 million in 1993, of whom about 77 percent were Arabs and 19 percent Kurds.

  1. From the ancient land of Iraq emerged complex irrigation systems and the earliest writing. ...

    A conquering Muslim elite based in present-day Turkey, the Ottomans at their peak in the 16th century ruled over an area larger than the Roman Empire of antiquity, including part of the Middle East and present-day Hungary. Baghdad never reached the cultural heights that it did under the Abbasids.

  2. The role of foreign policy on democratic transitions in Armenia and Azerbaijan

    and the new union treaty, put Gorbachev, who was vacationing in the Crimea, under house arrest in an attempt to seize power from him. Through the coup attempt was unsuccessful, it was clear Gorbachev's central administration was quite impotent, leaving room for the assertion of power by the republics, in particular the Russian republic and its leader Boris Yeltsin.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work