Until the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, Jewish merchants directed a major part of the trade in Basra and Baghdad, often in partnership with local Muslim merchants. Today, however, most of the Jews have gone to Israel, the United States, or Europe, and few Jews remain in Iraq.
Rural Iraqis have a tribal heritage dating back two or three generations. Most of them have farmed the land or raised livestock in one place all their lives. The number of nomads who migrate to different grazing lands with their flocks in spring and fall has decreased greatly, largely as a result of social welfare programs started by the government since 1958. Traditional Arab-Muslim values predominate in the rural areas, but people in the cities and towns lead lives similar to those in the West.
Islam plays a major role in the lives of most Iraqis, both rural and urban. They visit the mosque on Friday for the weekly reading of the Koran and prayers, and they observe religious holidays.
The first commercial oil field in Iraq was developed in Kirkuk in 1927 by the Iraq Petroleum Company. This largely British-owned firm obtained an exploration agreement from the Iraqi government for the provinces of Mosul and Baghdad. Other companies obtained similar agreements, and Iraq became one of the major petroleum-producing countries of the Middle East. The industry was fully nationalized by 1975. Exports of crude oil have been supplemented in recent years by the production of natural gas, and refineries have been built for oil used locally.
In 1990, Iraq invaded its tiny neighbour, Kuwait, after talks break down over oil production and debt repayment. Iraqi president Saddam Hussein later annexed Kuwait and declared it as a 19th province of Iraq. President Bush Senior believed that Iraq intends to invade Saudi Arabia and take control of the region's oil supplies. He began organizing a multinational coalition to seek Kuwait's freedom and restoration of its legitimate government. The UN Security Council authorized economic sanctions against Iraq. Bush ordered U.S. troops to protect Saudi Arabia at the Saudis' request and “Operation Desert Shield” began. 230,000 American troops arrived in Saudi Arabia to take defensive action, but when Iraq continued a huge military build-up in Kuwait, the President ordered an additional 200,000 troops to be deployed to prepare for a possible offensive action by the U.S.-led coalition forces. He subsequently obtained a UN Security Council resolution setting a deadline for Iraq to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait.
In 1991, Bush won congressional approval for his position with the most devastating air assault in history against military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. He rejected a Soviet-Iraq peace plan for a gradual withdrawal that did not comply with all the UN resolutions and gave Iraq an ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwait by noon on February 23rd. The president ordered the ground war to begin. In a brilliant and lightning-fast campaign, U.S. and coalition forces smashed through Iraq's defences and defeated Saddam Hussein's troops in only four days of combat. Allies entered Kuwait City. The Iraqi army set fire to over 500 of Kuwait's oil wells as a final act of destruction to Kuwait's infrastructure. Bush ordered a unilateral cease-fire 100 hours after the ground offensive started. Allied and Iraqi military leaders met on a battlefield to discuss terms for a formal cease-fire to end the Gulf War. Iraq agreed to abide by all of the UN resolutions. The first Allied prisoners of war were released. The official cease-fire was accepted and signed on April 6th. 532,000 U.S. forces served in Operation Desert Storm. There were a total of 148 U.S. battle deaths during the Gulf War, 145 non-battle deaths, and 467 wounded in action.
11 years later on and a very similar situation is at hand. The same evil tyrant only a different President Bush. Also, so far Iraq has not actually committed an act of violence against another nation but it is believed that they plan to for they have more weapons than they are allowed under the UN’s regulations and it is also predicted that they have or soon will have weapons of mass destruction such as implements of nuclear and biological warfare. UN weapons inspectors are currently searching Iraq for such weapons but are yet to produce enough evidence to obtain a UN mandate for war. Recently, the United States and Britain have signalled they believe they already have United Nations authority for a war against Iraq and that no further UN resolution is necessary. At a meeting with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in Washington, Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, said that if the UN Security Council did not back the use of force against Iraq, "the authority of the UN and the international order" would be at stake. Mr Straw and Mr Powell said last November's resolution, warning Iraq it faced serious consequences if it failed to disarm, meant "only one thing: force". They said France's President Jacques Chirac was on record as accepting that force "may have to be used in order to enforce the will of the United Nations". The US continued to dismiss French and German opposition to war, and said it would be easy to build a coalition to attack Iraq. That coalition would include Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy and virtually all the eastern European countries.
Here are a few reasons for going to war with Iraq.
After the Persian Gulf War, the United Nations formed a treaty with Iraq that specified what weapons they were allowed and how many they could store. This amount was decided on the bases that it would be enough to defend themselves from lesser countries invasions but would not be enough to invade other countries themselves or if need be, stop Britain or the USA. Although the UN agrees that Saddam Hussein probably does hold weapons of mass destruction, they are yet to draw up a full mandate allowing the attack of Iraq to proceed.
As well as the suspicion of powerful weapons, Saddam’s armies are growing in number too. In a recent report filed by Tony Blair it is said that most of the men of Iraq would go to war for the country, voluntarily or involuntarily. The current population of Iraq is roughly 19,918,000 people. Although this is merely 4% of the population of the US and Britain, it is not that far off the amount of troops available to invade Iraq. With the added factor of nuclear and biological weapons, this puts the allied forces in a difficult position. With artillery and Special Forces placed just miles from the Iraqi border, they await the go ahead from the United Nations. However the President of the US has recently implicated that he may not wait for the UN resolution allowing war. This has been the cause of much worry and alarm among the nation and could be a very bad move on the part of the Americans.
One suspected unofficial reason for war is the vast amount of petroleum oil in Iraq. In the 1980’s, it is said that George Bush senior had the chance to take out Hussein but refused to. His reason for this is that he was a pinnacle post against Iran. The world accepted this excuse until the start of the Persian Gulf War when Iraq became an enemy of USA. Doubts then arose and holes began to appear in the President’s ethics. A theory came about that Bush did not take out Hussein because he was keeping the oil prices down. These theories grew stronger as time went on and were fortified, if not confirmed, when after the defeat of Iraq in 1991 by allied forces, the United Nations created a resolution stating that all sales of oil must be to the alliance until the war debt to Kuwait was paid off. Now, with the new threat, suspicions are forming that if we overthrow Saddam then stronger restrictions could be put on the sale of petroleum. This could mean lower fuel prices and would help the economy of all the countries involved. However government officials have denied all these allegations and they have upheld that the only reason for war is the threat of Iraq’s power.
Another officially disproved theory is that the Pentagon has been storing so many weapons themselves that they have never had a chance to use. If they were to be demonstrated against Iraq then allied countries may buy some from the Americans. They have tried to sell their weapons of ‘defense’ to many governments although the only buyers so far are Britain. The US are currently building their Missile Defense System, nicknamed the Star Wars Defense System. This involves putting up satellites in strategic positions around the country to detect any incoming missile in the vicinity. Once detected counter missiles will be fired to intercept the incoming threat. Talks are being held to decided whether to build such a satellite in England.
Here are a few counter arguments against war.
If Iraq does harbour weapons of nuclear or biological warfare then war could be a very big mistake. Depending on how powerful Saddam’s weapons are determines how much damage he could do but with a moderately powerful nuclear blast the whole of the British Isles would feel the effects, such as radiation poisoning, for generations. Biological weapons would cause less material damage but would be catastrophic for humans. With diseases such as anthrax, a ‘Dirty Bomb’ could kill millions in the UK alone. This is clearly not what anybody wants but then comes the issue of either invading Iraq to confiscate his weapons and risk being attacked or just waiting for him to use them against us. United Nations weapons inspectors have been searching Iraq’s weapons stores for evidence of implements of mass destruction. They are as yet to provide enough proof to convince the UN board to sign a mandate for an invasion although Saddam Hussein has denied them access to certain areas despite instructions from the UN to cooperate fully with their requests. This suggests that he has something to hide.
As I mentioned earlier, a large percentage of this countries petroleum supplies come from Iraq. If America decides to take military action against Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator will leave behind a lot of oil. This could send the current oil prices plummeting. Although this may be good news to the consumer, companies with shares in the mining industry could lose out on hundreds of pounds worth of investments. Also many British oil companies could go out of business, which could trigger a recession in the whole economy of the United Kingdom. This may sound implausible but it is a real hazard that has to be considered in this situation.
When all of the evidence is taken in to consideration, it is plain to see that the number of reasons for a war with Iraq easily outnumbers the reasons against it but when you look at the content of the reasons, most of the grounds for an attack are insubstantial to justify a fully fledged war with Saddam Hussein. On the one hand he may have weapons of mass destruction but does this compensate for the bombing of millions of innocent people? Surely there is a way to avoid a war fought with missile and payed for by victim’s lives. My opinion is that forces should be dispatched in to Iraq but only to seize their arsenals and control their firepower and only use force when necessary against the probable resistance.
