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

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

Extracts from this document...


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. ...read more.


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. The UK and US are already enemies of Iraq, so surely going to war with them is only going to decrease their trust in us. ...read more.


Even though this seems a good plan of action now, we cannot be sure that forming a new Iraqi government will be a peaceful progression. For there will be much deliberation into who will eventually take over the running of Iraq. Through this process there is a possibility of hatred forming within Iraq, if this happens then Iraq will see inequality again. For every war there is a cost, civilian death. This is a factor of war that can not easily be avoided, for if the allies progress in war with Iraq there will be citizen casualties. However, the outcome of war has to outweigh the evil that caused the war in the first place. So, at the end of conflict there will be much civilian causality, but through sacrificing a small number of Iraqi citizens the majority of the Iraqi population will be free and safe from the danger of Saddam's regime. Some of the Iraqi citizens that will flea Iraq if war occurs will return to their free state when peace is returned, however many will not. An increase in refugees around the world will increase inevitably. This is a fact that should not be forgotten in the increased chance of a war against Iraq. For we have recently seen in the newspapers the damaging effect that refugees have on a nations government spending. Not only this but it also encourages terrorism once again. James Morrish 04/05/2007 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Morality of War 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 GCSE Morality of War essays

  1. Christian views on a just war.

    man for his wrong doings and let him repent his own sins. This belief of forgiveness decelerates that should he recognise his wrongs and change his behaviour he could then be forgiven of his previous sins. Unfortunately Saddam was tolerant of the pain and suffering caused under his regime and unwilling to recognise a need to change his behaviour.

  2. Victims of War

    that many people had to suffer because of war and he began to help care for wounded people on both sides. To date the movement is a very large humanitarian aid agency in the world and is known by many people.

  1. Biological weapons

    With the scientific progress in biotechnology, it becomes easier and easier to produce substances and so there are more chances for biological warfare. We can say that there are different viewpoints about biological weapons: we have on one side the countries that follow all the international agreements and resolutions about

  2. Should There be War in Iraq?

    In some cases Hussein even used the repulsive war tactic of human shields. His aggression against neighboring countries of Iran and Kuwait had lead to the death of over 1.5 million muslims. Other abhorrent actions include the gassing of thousands of Kurds of northern Iraq in 1988, which is more evidence of possessing banned chemical weapons.

  1. Analysis of speech extract: Tony Blair

    It is saying that the destruction will be not just of one, but of many, and it implying that it will be catastrophic. The word "extreme" is describing the terrorist groups. It is an absolute adjective. Perverted and false are both absolute adjectives, used to describe the view of Islam.

  2. Nelson Mandela, "Little more than a terrorist" or "An abused leader of his people"?

    On the surface this looks like a fair compromise, Mandela says that he will never use violence again and they will let him out. But this makes Mandela look like a terrorist because if he says that he will

  1. Barrington Dyer and develops the inception of this report, its thesis, and motivation as ...

    These are; Biological weapons, Chemical weapons, Nuclear weapons, and Radiological devices. With the field now leveled, a race for dominance in the world followed; this, however, was not a race conducted in the traditional sense (i.e. economics, land, etc) but through stockpiling of "nukes" and other weapons of mass destruction.

  2. Ought The UK and The USA attack Iraq?

    against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state' and requires UN members to 'settle their international disputes by peaceful means.' The Pact renounces aggressive acts of war by nations. Further, the Hague Convention prohibits 'attack or bombardment of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended.'

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