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

To discuss reasons for and against waging War on Iraq, reaching a conclusion based on personal opinion, and information gathered from various sources, both for and against.

Extracts from this document...


Aim To discuss reasons for and against waging War on Iraq, reaching a conclusion based on personal opinion, and information gathered from various sources, both for and against. The Sources Source 1 www.non-violence.org This is a web site opposed to the war on Iraq. Although there is little factual evidence which reduces the integrity, there are vague truths such as "Iraq's missiles are not very good at delivery chemicals". This is a biased source as it supports a more liberal stance, so they are less likely to point out anything that could condemn Iraq or Saddam Hussein. It is written to make Iraq look weak, and thus make the US look like bullies. They use quotes such as "Iraq's military is a shambles", and "Shadow or former self" to do this. Source 2 www.seattlepl.nwsource.com This source, from a Seattle based broadsheet newspaper, "The Seattle Post Intelligencer" is based much more on statistics, such as figures for cost, numbers of troops and religious spread in Iraq. This source also takes into consideration, Saddam's age and who would take over if he were killed or overthrown. The source isn't likely to be biased, as it is from an established company, thus facts will have been considered before they took this stance. The editor's political persuasion does need to be considered though, as the employee wants to please there boss, so the writer may have written to a stance to please the editor, even if he, after research, have come to a different opinion. ...read more.


claims source 5. This sort of money would be able to vastly improve education and quality of life in Iraq, thus preparing it for when the oil eventually runs dry. Saddam also provided security officials with, "extra food rations, Mercedes automobiles and monthly stipends in the thousands of dollars." This is another sign of Saddam's greed and how money in Iraq is being horded by the powerful to gain much more power, not only in Iraq but around the world with there nuclear reputation. All this is at the deposal of the Iraq peoples human rights and lifestyles, which have been crushed. The gulf war was the battle fought between America and its allies against Iraq after they invade Kuwait and Hussein appointed himself president of Kuwait. As he built up power in the country for an invasion of Saudi Arabia when the Saudi's called for US assistance, as if Saddam took control he would control 40% of all oil supplies and could have power over all. "Over 1 million people died in them" claims source 4 about the war. Some could argue that the 1 million deaths is an argument against war, but if you consider the numbers that would have died if Iraq was left to its own devices to conquer the middle east and potentially attack the west with its nuclear program, the numbers died in the war would have been less than without. ...read more.


In conclusion I think I will have to side with taking action again the regime and instigating war on Iraq. Granted, the information against the war is compelling and I find the bush doctrine fascinating, but the facts presented in the US portfolio are too strong no ignore. The state of Iraq at the present time is terrible, the condition the country is in can be describes as poor at best. I have no doubt that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and none of the sources try to deny this, and we need to look to the future. In 35 years the oil in Iraq will be gone, then there is a country with no industry and economy, an uneducated population and all services in a disastrous state. But the country will, no doubt have an extremist leader and a stockpile of weapons if no action is taken. What will that leader do? Start a legitimate organised government that decides what's best for the countries future, or send troops into neighbouring countries in an attempt to obtain more resources and money as they have done in the past? Mr. Blair and The US governments arguments are respectable, considered and represented well, even if there motives are unclear. All the sources against the war overlook how the Iraqi people are being treated, and it is the people that need to be saved from Saddam, not the military strong arms like the US and the UK. ...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.

    Today, the United States could possibly go to war with Iraq. Iraq has still not agreed to let the U.N. weapon inspectors do their work. The U.S. is strategizing about how to replace Saddam Hussein, and try to help Iraq.

  2. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    America's previous policy of generosity toward the Soviets had been "misinterpreted in Moscow," Harriman believed, leading the Russians to think they had carte blanche to proceed as they wished. In Harriman's view, the Soviets were engaged in a "barbarian invasion of Europe."

  1. Hiroshima Coursework This piece of coursework will concentrate on three questions, all source based.

    was a fellow American and he worked directly for President Harry S. Truman. However, what we see here is that Admiral William Leahy is totally against the nuclear bomb. It states in his memoirs, 'The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.

  2. Vietnam - reasons the US lost the war.

    After arriving back to Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh decided to start the Vietminh. The Vietminh were a group that later became as an independence movement against the French. Many people supported Ho Chi Minh for his actions especially his own people.

  1. Vietnam Sources Questions

    Use sources K,L and M and your own knowledge to explain how effective napalm and agent orange were in America's attempt to win the Vietnam War. Napalm was a petroleum based chemical which, when it came into contact with another material (e.g.

  2. The Arab-Israeli conflict.

    This put the Jews in a much physically powerful position than the Arabs. During this Arab revolt, attitudes of the British government began to change towards the Zionist project. A white paper stated that Britain did not support a separate Jewish State and neither a partitioned Palestine.

  1. World War One Sources Questions

    that source D would tend to back up my own background knowledge. 6). Sources I and J give two very different impressions of the trenches in WW1, this is because they are aimed to do completely different things. Source I is aimed to sell cigarettes and tries to present the

  2. The United Nations and the Iraq Conflict

    With the end of World War II, in addition to the creation of the UN, emerged two alliances, which dictated the force behind two 'teams' in the UN. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), included the members of the ally countries, and the countries in support of the Triple Entente erected the Warsaw Pact.

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