Examine the arguments for and against Britain going to war to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

Examine the arguments for and against Britain going to war to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction

The primary anxiety of the United Kingdom and The United States Of America is that Iraq could have the potential to use weapons of mass destruction.  Weapons, that if placed into the wrong hands, could cause immense devastation in the world.  Not only this, but Saddam Hussein continues to be a threat to the UK and US due to the possible link he has with terrorist organisations such as the Al Queda.  It is also a fact that Saddam is a brutal dictator who killed the Kurds, attacks his neighbours and eliminates any "enemy combatants" who dare stand in his way.   That being said, should the U.K. be the country to get rid of Hussein? Would the elimination of Hussein solve many of the problems associated with him or would it create larger problems? Does the U.K. even have the right to make this decision?

There are numerous arguments for and against going to war with Iraq, however potentially the most important matter that going to war should prevent the future production of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  This kind of weapon, with a potential to kill millions of people, should not be used under any circumstances. Many countries have them in their ownership but both Tony Blair and George Bush do not have enough trust in Iraq to believe that they do not have these kinds of weapons already and that they are not trying to produce them at this precise moment.   If Iraq did have access to such weapons who can tell whether, through Saddam’s hate for the West, he could attack us with the most destructive and sophisticated weaponry in the world. Although, there is even less evidence that Hussein provides any real threat to the U.S and UK even if he had them, he has no capability of delivering weapons of mass destruction against American or United Kingdom targets outside of embassies in the Middle East region. That scenario would obviously be tragic, but there is no evidence that Saddam is planning on using weapons against anyone.  In addition during the Gulf War, Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons but refused to use them, even when they were defeated in Kuwait and allied forces pushed over the Iraqi border. They didn't use them during any of the time period since the Gulf War.  Despite a continuing campaign of bombing by the U.S. and Great Britain Saddam has only used chemical/biological weapons against Arabs and not for a considerable amount of time. Saddams’s last known use of these weapons was prior to the Gulf War when he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq. We weren't particularly worried about him using weapons of mass destruction then and he is significantly weaker and less technologically supported than he was then.  So why is it we feel it necessary to go to war with him now? Iraq could and there is some evidence that Iraq does have connections to terrorist organisations.  So, the UK may trust Iraq not to use these weapons, but how can we trust Iraq not to pass them onto terrorist groups such as Al Queda.  If terrorist organisations obtain such weapons there is no doubt that they would use them in some way or another.  These Islamic fanatics are prepared to die for their beliefs; surely we cannot trust these sorts of people.  Nevertheless, if the UK does carry out war on Iraq there is the risk of Saddam encouraging terrorists to help him in the defeat of the allies.  So, the UK may want to stop Iraq passing on WMD to terrorist networks, but is it right to go to war with a country with so little evidence that they have weapons of mass destruction, just because we don’t want that country to pass them onto to terrorists? The problem with going to war is that we cannot be sure that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, for the Former chief U.N. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who knows from personal experience, claims that 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability was destroyed, including all the factories, production equipment, weapons and agents that existed in the country at the time. Furthermore, Ritter reminds us that chemical and biological agents don't last forever. Chemical agents degrade within five years ad biological agents degrade within three years.