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

    His abscence caused a tremendous drop in the morale of SLA troops. After belatedly learning of the turn of events in the south, Lahd quickly flew back to Tel Aviv and drove up to the border, only to discover

  2. 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,

  1. September 11th

    But now the political climate has changed and the Syrians have expressed little to favour a war. However, as time passes and pressure mounts, it is likely that the Syrians shall resign themselves to war. Once the US has established a Coalition of states to support it, military, economically or

  2. History of the United States

    the Confederation Congress, with limited powers not unlike those of the United Nations. The states retained their sovereignty, with each state government selecting representatives to sit in the Congress. No national executive or judiciary had been established. Each state delegation received an equal vote on all issues.

  1. Why did President Bush not invade Iraq after he had won so easily in ...

    Part B: Summary of Evidence Once the war ended, people back in the United States were ecstatic that the war was finally over and that their boys were coming home. Had President Bush announced that although the objectives of saving Kuwait had been achieved, a new objective of taking Kuwait

  2. Oil was a true reason of attacking Iraq

    We should be happy that there are some countries in the world which do a lot to safe us from evil, but on the other hand it is not good that administration of the country invade other nation without any rational reason except for gaining financial profits.

  1. A Study of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Iran is an OPEC member. This country has one of the world's largest oil tanker fleets that carry her crude and refined oil worldwide. Iran's oil industry became independent in 1950. In recent years Iran has been exploring, extracting, refining and shipping her oil independent of technological assistance by other countries.

  2. Should Britain Pull Out Their Troops From Iraq?

    My next source is taken from the website and the people who own the website are a news bureau. It details the events leading to 3 soldiers being sent home. It also considers what was happening during the war, and before it to remind us of people's feelings in the UK at that time.

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