The war introduced several technologically advanced weapon systems. As well as that, the United States forged a broad-based international coalition that confronted Iraq militarily strategy.
In article 2 it quotes “ Iraqi’s tyrant has weapons of mass destruction and has links with Bin Laden and Al-Quaida” this is another reason why the war started was because Saddam is branded a tyrant and a man with weapons of mass destruction and America wants to get rid of him and the weapons. It is this sort of view that has lead George Bush Jnr to target Iraq and the writer of this article makes it very clear that he thinks the same.
Article 1 was written before the war. This article was written because Andrew Cooper (the writer of this article) wanted to inform the citizens of what was to come. For example “probable destruction and carnage lies with ordinarily decent” tells of how he feels that despite the decency of overthrowing the almost totalitarian regime currently in place that there is also a downside, with carnage being widespread, civilian deaths would be high, cities would be destroyed and a lot of money would be spent, wasted almost, on all of this. Although halfway through the article Andrew supports Iraq by saying “ Who dropped two atom bombs on a civilian population” he goes on to continue his previous views and near the end of the article, Andrew evens out the bias by saying that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown and this will lead to the Iraqi population living a normal life in peace.
The articles discuss this issue of going to war. Article 1 is by Andrew Cooper who comes from Meir in Staffordshire. In this article he talks about the issue on going to war. Andrew is very cynical in the way he says “ America and British leaders present a sequel- Gulf War part 2”. In a way he is mocking the war and what is going on. The beginning of the first paragraph is very biased because he says that they are going to war for there own profits, this is a key point due to the oil that is owned in and around Iraq. A couple of paragraphs down Andrew make a key point on why not approaching Israel or Iran. These countries are as big a threat as Iraq, with both posing as possible holders of weapons of mass destruction. Halfway through the article Andrew quotes “Hussein’s evil dictatorship, his quest for horrific weapons, and his history of human rights abuses precisely because our own countries criminal pasts”. In a way Andrew is sticking up for Saddam in that line because it is not just Saddam who has abused human rights, America and Britain have also supported these “brutal regimes” when they have been equally as dangerous as the situation in Iraq. Near the end of the article Andrew quotes “Saddam Hussein is a vicious despot and sooner he is overthrown by the Iraqi people, the better Iraq would be”. He says this purely to level out the bias and sit on the fence, rather than choosing a side and getting slated by peers, he shows that he is not on Saddam or George W Bush’s side. In this article his view is rather against the war. Examples for the reason of been against the war are when he quotes “Originality read human tragedy”. This quote is very anti-war because human death happens in wars and he does not want this to happen. Another quote against the war is “ We, the public, understand all of this but yet do nothing about it”. This quote tells the reader to do something about this war and not let the war go ahead.
He supports this view in a number of ways. Some examples of the argument he uses are when he says “Hussein’s evil dictatorship, his quest for horrific weapons, and his history of human rights abuses precisely because our own countries criminal pasts” and backs this point up very well when he says “How many brutal regimes has Britain and America not only ignored, but in many cases, actively supported? Who dropped two atom bombs on a civilian population?” This is backed well because although Saddam Hussein has done bad things in the past, the American have done even worse things by dropping nuclear atom bombs on incant people and ignoring the important things in the world.
Article 2 is by R Davies from Trent Vale. In this article he discuses the fact that Saddam Hussein has all these weapons of mass destruction and no one has done anything to stop him deploying them. In the First couple of paragraphs, R Davies explains the fact that Colin Powell’s damning evidence to the UN about the accommodation of this brutal dictator should be sorted out and that he should not be ruling the country. He uses words such as “sit back” and “accommodate” to make his point clear on what not is been done to over throw Saddam. Halfway through the article R Davies gives a number of statements Colin Powell stated in his speech. “Iraq had not accounted for 8,500 litres of anthrax it had in 1995” and “ Iraq was testing chemical agents on death row prisoners”. These are just a few of the things R Davies stated in this section.
The viewpoint of R Davies is that he wants American troops and British troops to go to war in Iraq simply because of the evidence that Colin Powell had presented in his speech. R Davies has a very strong viewpoint on going to war. It can be seen in the following lines “On hearing Colin Powell’s damning evidence to the UN, are we still to sit back and accommodate this brutal tyrant?” R Davies is very intimidated about Saddam regime, as seen in the quote and he wants something to be done about it. His view through out the whole article is concentrated on going to war and the UN, Colin Powell and Dr Blix (A member of the UN) are making R Davies more certain that the war was going to happen by how they come out with all the there statements about Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and cant prove that they have any.
He supports this view in a number of ways. There is basically one example he uses which is “On hearing Colin Powell’s damning evidence to the UN, are we still to sit back and accommodate this brutal tyrant?” He backs this up extremely well by using the information from Colin Powell’s speech and the UN to make his point on why Saddam is so brutal, can’t be trusted with anthrax and weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam cant run his own country. Here is a example, “Iraqi scientists were been held under house arrest and simply not allowed to talk to the UN inspectors unless accompanied by Saddam’s henchmen”. Examples like this back up R Davies’s commitment of going to war. R Davies’ view supports Colin Powell’s speech exactly, as the majority of his views and standpoints centre around the evidence that Colin Powell has collected.
There are examples of bias in the articles, as the writers only express their own views or use arguments that only support their own views. In article 1 there is not too much bias, because Andrew Cooper has considered put across both points of view so to give the reader the choice whether to agree with him or to go against his own views. His arguments are extremely well backed up and his article is almost down with the middle, with him having the slight tendency to lean towards the anti-war side of the fence.
In article 2 there is bias shown. Throughout the article R Davies is biased because he does not show differences of opinion. He does not even appear to consider the other argument and fills the whole article with his pro-war speech, almost like a rallying cry. Examples of bias shown right at the beginning of this article “Are we still to sit back and accommodate this brutal tyrant?” This shows bias because R Davies has his own point of view right at the beginning and does not show another point of why we should not be going to war. This is one of many quotes throughout the article that shows he is clearly for the war in Iraq and that he is going to provide his point of view, whether the reader likes it or not.
My own personal opinion on the war with Iraq is one of disdain and confusion. I am uncertain about which side to back, with my loyalties obviously lying with Britain about the state of the nation and how we have to protect ourselves but I just do not see the threat that Iraq poses. It has become clear recently that Britain and the USA have a few hidden agendas, with a number of possible reasons for war entering my head as I think about the issue more. A reason that I believe the war has taken place is unfinished business. I am probably not the only person to think this but I firmly believe that George Bush Jnr, is completing the one job his father did not complete, overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime and ultimately, killing the tyrant.
Another reason is oil. A lot of money can be made for the flagging fortunes of both the dollar and the pound if they get hold of the oil currently owned by Iraqi leaders. Surely the thought of the billions of dollars that can possibly be made has entered the head of both Bush and Blair and I strongly believe that this is one of their ulterior motives, so overthrowing Saddam and releasing Iraq from his tyrannical reign of terror is the main reason for this war, as well as the apparent threat of his weapons of mass destruction but surely behind the goodness, there is an ulterior motive or two lying behind.
What I cannot grasp about this war is that if Saddam really does have these weapons, will attacking him not provoke him into using them?! There is less of a threat if he is unprovoked, he would have no reason to unleash an attack on the western world apart from his own loathing, but if the western world decides to attack him, these weapons that Iraq apparently possesses will just be used during the battle surely, so that brings the question Where is the logic?!
I am by no means pro war or anti war nor do I sit on the fence with the issue. At first I was interested, I believed that this war was a good thing, the western world would be safe and all will be good, sort of like a fairytale but then I began to think of the things that drove the western world into this battle in the first place, I took a lot of things into consideration before deciding which opinion to back but ultimately I back none of the sides. I fail to see what will be achieved by this war and if anything is achieved, what will become of Iraq? For the first few months at least it will be lawless, with the odd soldier attempting to keep the peace, looting, deaths and attacks will all take place and there will not be a thing in place to stop it from happening, at least now, albeit under the totalitarian rule of a Hitler-esque dictator, there is law in Iraq. There is no obvious danger for the civilians at the moment but if this war continues, they are more at risk than ever. Bombs will be dropped nightly and troops will employ a “shoot on sight” policy, meaning as soon as they see an Iraqi they will fire upon them, whether they present a danger or not.
So to conclude my view, the war on Iraq began interesting, a lot of opinionated views were brought forward and a lot of tabloid and media speculation was rife as the world wondered whether Bush and Blair would continue their Batman and Robin style double act to rid the free world of the bad guy known as Saddam, as it turns out they got the backing, finally, of the rest of the UN and proceeded to go to war, causing many people, myself included, to deliberate on why the war was necessary. I became very opinionated myself and I came up with a number of almost fairytale like stories and theories on what suddenly possesses two of the most powerful men in the supposed “free world” to launch an attack on a middle eastern nation that, in recent years, was very serene and hardly launched an attack, not even on its most hated of neighbours Iran. For a final thought, I would like to question the motives behind this ‘Mickey Mouse’ war and state that I am no longer interested, for me this whole issue has ran its course and nothing that anybody says can dissuade me from my standpoint.
Scott Simpson 10 MR