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

The case against war on Iraq.

Extracts from this document...


4th March 2003 * The case against war on Iraq The case for a war on Iraq is one precariously based on hidden agendas and fallacies. It seems now that war is inevitable, that anything that is done will not affect the course of action George W. Bush is determined to take; to lead a "coalition of the willing" into war against Iraq. The United States of America has attempted to pass two resolutions in the UN which would legitimise a War on Iraq. The first of these has failed to be passed, and we will soon find out the results of the second resolution. It is most likely it will fail; the USSR, China, France and Germany are all strongly opposed to war and as permanent members of the UN Security Council have right of veto. However, the outcome of this resolution is irrelevant, the USA and Britain have both overtly stated that they will fight a unilateral war; a war without UN backing. The reason that the United Nations will reject proposals for war is two-fold. The scope of the UN is that action is only possible in the case of a state harbouring or stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Various charters have been signed by all members of the UN agreeing to this. Iraq also agreed to these charters in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. The theoretical course of action over a country found to be building up weapons of mass destruction would be to pursue the use of diplomatic and political pressures on that country. ...read more.


Essentially it is unthinkable to link Al-Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden's 'Shiite' movements with Saddam Hussain's regime. The FBI and CIA have also strenuously played down these links. It is clear that the USA is abusing the paranoia over terrorism since 9/11 as propaganda to win support from its population for this war on Iraq. The war on Iraq will soothe American wounds over 9/11 after their ineptitude to find Osama Bin Laden. It is alarmingly true that the USA as a state fits the above definition of terrorism much more so than Iraq does. Incredibly, a war would be of immense benefit to Saddam Hussain. Because of America's mobilisation of troops and it's reiteration of threats to use weapons of mass destruction, including perhaps nuclear weapons against Iraq, and the lack of a UN resolution, Saddam Hussein is more than within his rights to launch a pre-emptive strike on the USA. Once the war begins, he gains even greater capacity. War will inevitably lead to the withdrawal of weapons inspectors, note that in 1998 inspectors were not expelled, but withdrawn by Bill Clinton before his bombing campaign. Being waged war against, Saddam will have some justification for restarting the development of weapons of mass destruction under the pretext of national defence. As it stands at the moment, the threat of war is enough to keep Saddam in line. If war begins, then Saddam will have no reason not to use any weapons he has to their full capability. A war will only serve to further the cause of terrorists. ...read more.


It was only when Iraq threatened US oil supplies in Kuwait that we launched a war. And remember that that war was under the UN resolution to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but we went a step further and marched all the way to Baghdad. In the build up to this war, the largest US oil magnates, including relatives of George Bush have already met with government officials to propose what would be done with oil supplies after an invasion. It is simply unjustifiable to go to war when there are workable alternatives on the table which haven't even been considered. It has been proposed by many nations that Iraq's disarmament should be monitored and ensured by giving a set of goals and targets that it must match by specific dates. This would give Saddam no room for manoeuvrability as the threat of force would still be there if he didn't comply. It has also been suggested that the UN should hold a regulated election in Iraq. The people would be able to decide their government and able to form a democracy. Whereas this would be somewhat difficult to work, it is worth considering and would topple Saddam as America wishes. In conclusion, there is quite simply no case for war against Iraq. The war would neither be preventative or gainful. There is no new evidence rationalising war now as opposed to over the last decade, and it is clear that war is being rushed wrongly. It is likely to be inflammatory and costly. The choice of target as Iraq shows no logic itself as Iraq is currently at its weakest while other rogue states threaten. This war lacks legitimacy, morality and sense. Never has aggression been justified on such shaky ground with such false pretexts since the 1930s. ...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. War With Iraq.

    Even the war against Iran didn't end the peoples' support of Hussein. By 1984, almost 1.5 million Iraqis were supporters of Hussein and the Ba'thists party. Hussein kept enlarging his army and security. His government created new agencies to control and manipulate the citizens of Iraq.

  2. The United Nations and the Iraq Conflict

    government would not remain one day in the UN without retaining the veto power."13 This veto power has lead to the control of the Security Council, the highest decision making organ in the UN regarding peace processes, by these five countries.

  1. History of the United States

    Hamilton also proposed (with limited success) that protective tariffs be established to exclude foreign goods and thus stimulate the development of U.S. factories. In short, he laid out the economic philosophy of what became the FEDERALIST PARTY: that the government should actively encourage economic growth by providing aid to capitalists.

  2. "War in the Modern World includes terrorism and the threat of Nuclear War. How ...

    after the war- the surrendering country should not be made to pay so much money that the people who live there can never recover"- for example the reparations the Germans who have had to pay ($6 billion) would have taken till the end of the 1980's to pay off. 4.

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

    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.

  2. How does the notion of rightful or higher authority affect the ethics of war?

    A government must represent the wishes of its public. There are issues when it comes to how well a governement conforms to a rightful authority such as how often are they elected. In the case of a dictatorship this is never and therefore the governement might not be considered a rightful authority.

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

    And with the emergence of certain studies during the 1970s indicating the possibility of the oil wells drying up within a few decades, the international struggle intensified over oil and the control of its rich wells, especially in the region of the Gulf, which contains huge reserves.

  2. How Did the Nuremberg Trials Work and Who Was Tried and Why?

    of doing these disastrous things, they looked at his parents, his childhood; they took a look at his personal issues. They went deep enough even to look at his past wives (Goldensohn 101). Unlike most people convicted throughout the trials; Goering was willing to accept that he actually did these things.

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