Source 5 Official US Portfolio
I will concentrate on pages 10 and 12 from the 39 page portfolio from the US Government on the threat and wrong doings of Iraq and Saddam. The first section concentrates on the repression of the Iraqi people. It gives facts on villages attacked and people imprisoned and deported. Like source 4, this source also demonises Saddam and highlights his murdering of Shi’a clerics. The second section concentrates on mis-management of resources. This includes yet more facts on Hussein’s lavish palaces and his disregard for his own country’s wellbeing. To drive the message home, he mentions health care not being provided to “thousands of Iraqi children”. As people see children as weak and vulnerable, this puts Saddam in a much worse light.
Structure
FOR
Paragraph 1 Chemical Weapons Capabilities
Paragraph 2 Saddam’s mentality
Paragraph 3 Resource Mismanagement
Paragraph 4 The Gulf War
Paragraph 5 The Weapons Inspectors
Paragraph 6 What’s best for the Iraqi people
AGAINST
Paragraph 7 The state of Saddam and his army
Paragraph 8 There is no threat
Paragraph 9 Trigger more violence in the Islamic world
Paragraph 10 The cost of war
Paragraph 11 George W Bush’s Motives.
Paragraph 12 Conclusion
For my conclusion I will look at all the resources I have found and decided what is best for the Iraqi people, Iraq’s neighbouring countries and the safety of people all around the world.
1578 Words
Should we wage war against Iraq
Source 4 emotively tells of the, “hurt and agony” which the Iraq people endure with,”around 100,000 Kurds” killed in attacks on the city of Halabja. This just goes to show the effects that his weapons can have and the damage that can be achieved. The source also claims that, when the weapons inspectors left there was still, “enough chemical and biological weapons remaining to devastate the entire gulf region.” Mr. Blair’s speech also mentions, ”anthrax, sarin and mustard gas.” All of which are highly specialised chemicals which show an in depth and hi-tech military program, which means they need to be neutralised before they progress further.
The mentality of Saddam Hussein has always been in doubt ever since he started two, as alleged by source 4, “wars of aggression” this shows his readiness to fight and his military based government strategies. Not only this, but he is willing to test his weapons on his own people, with thousands dying in attacks. Source 5 state that “He is murdering Shi’a clerics.” showing his murderous, ruthless approach to those who oppose him. Saddam has a reputation as being a paranoid dictator, murdering his son, killing his people and showing total disregard for morals.
Iraq is an oil rich country, which provided a lot of wealth, with source 5 claiming Hussein’s, “personal wealth at $6 billion.” yet it goes on to say that the average government worker only receives $3.50 a month. Where does the money all go? “Since the gulf war, Saddam has spent over $2 billion on presidential palaces.” 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.
Iraq has had no weapons inspectors in the country for 4 years, and despite UN intervention. According to source 4, Saddam has “lied, concealed, obstructed and harassed.” them even when they were in the country, so the arm of diplomacy has been exhausted to no avail. Kofi Annan stopped his own involvement in Iraq’s affairs due to, “Iraqi intransigence.” Thus Iraq’s narrow minded stubbornness makes negotiation for the inspectors to re-enter very difficult, and if there are no weapons inspectors, then war is seen as the only way to find and bring to a halt anything that is going on.
Source 4 describes current conditions in Iraq as, “the worst regime on earth”. As discussed earlier he attacked his own Iraqi Kurds and attacked scores of towns and villages, leaving the Iraq public in fear of there dictator.
Also there are horrifying claims in this source that;”Iraqi military officials dressed in full military gear were used to witness the effects of the attacks.” Source 5 also mentions the fact that Saddam is depriving the Iraqi people of much needed medical support, mentioning a lack of “vaccines, antibiotics and the chemotherapeutics necessary.” Showing that with Saddam in power the Iraqi people aren’t being cared for by there government.
As it says in source 1, “The Iraqi military is a shambles.” and a “shadow” of its former self. And this they are not a threat to neighbouring countries, one of the arguments for war being that they have the power to devastate the gulf, as it goes on to claim, “it does not pose a threat.” Source 2 suggests, “It is better to face a modest threat today than a nuclear armed Saddam tomorrow”, yet goes on to tell us, “Saddam is 65, tomorrow he could be in a coffin.” Although I think this is a tad narrow minded, as with Hussein gone, someone else no doubt take over his regime and inherit his nuclear arms, so nothing will you will still be left with a nuclear threat.
Another argument against war is that war wouldn’t have an impact on the Iraq regime. Source 1 tells us that war, “won’t reduce Hussein’s weapons stockpiles, and probably won’t drive him out of power.”, thus what is the point of western army’s risking their live, and the lives of the innocent Iraq public and Iraqi military if nothing would be resolved from it. Again in Source 1 it says that “scud missiles are actually not very good at delivering chemical and biological weapons.” So even if Iraq do have weapons they have no good way of deploying them so are they a threat to neighbouring countries or other countries around the world.
Source 2 states that, if provoked, Saddam has more of a reason to implement a “use ‘em and lose ‘em” tactic with his weapons of mass destruction. No attack will give Hussein no reason to use his weapons, a sit also claims before they can’t use them against neighbouring countries as his army isn’t as capable as it was. It also says, “military planners worry that he could send nerve gas raining down on Tel Aviv.” thus turning the war into a large scale Arab-Israeli conflict. The outrage that would echo around the Arab world would, if anything push back the war on terror. Source 2 recognises that it, “could lead to a surge of anti-Americanism.” And also warns the of possible, “collapse of governments in Cairo and Riyadh.” Which would without question cause more problems than it would solve.
The cost of war would obviously be huge, source 2 estimates $55 billion, for which, “fighting the war would cost perhaps $35 billion, and it would take $20 billion more to rebuild Iraq.” This figure is more than education and healthcare combined, this is it a good use of American resources. Also is this not a bit hypocritical to spend this much on weapons and military strength in the attack when Saddam, who it claims in source 4, uses $3 billion on his military. The anti-war protesters have a good point when they ask “is there a need for such a heavy handed attack on Iraq?”
Source 3 talks of the “Bush Doctrine”, which leaked the facts that the Americans don’t want “foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago.” If you link this information to a later quote of “Saddam Hussein government awarded $1.1 trillion in oil contracts to Europe, China and Russia.” And goes on to claim that “Russian oil corporations, particularly the Russian oil giant Lukoil, are fearful that their contracts will not be honoured by a post-Hussein government dominated,” it suggest that Bush is fighting his own allies as if it was still the cold war. It also questions his motives saying, “The White House is developing a detailed plan ... to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein” his also suggests Bush is only in this attack to control an oil rich nation and to spit the other major world powers.
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.
