Steves Mac
03-13-2003, 01:01 AM
In the years since the Gulf War (1990-1991), the United States and Iraq have been engaged in a state of continued hostility. Under the terms of the armistice, which ended the war over Kuwait in 1991, Iraq agreed to allowed United Nations weapons inspectors to search for and destroy suspected weapons of mass destruction (White House). Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are included in this category, and Iraq is known to have previously used chemical weapons in warfare with Iran and with Kurdish rebels (White House). In January of 1998, Iraq announced its intention to deny United Nations weapons inspectors access to eight presidential sites (Lee). The British and American Governments announced that they would resort to the use of force if the inspectors were not granted total and unconditional access to any suspect locations (Lee). The international community appears united in insisting that the regime of Saddam Hussein fulfils its obligations under the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions (Lee).
Since American and British forces carried out Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 against Iraq, this "forgotten" war in the Middle East has only become worse (Dodd). Since the beginning of 1999, Allied pilots have launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 Iraqi targets (Dodd). That number equals nearly three times the amount of ordnance used in the four-day Desert Fox strike. Also, the pilots in the Iraq War have flown two-thirds the number of missions as NATO pilots in the Kosovo War (Dodd). By all accounts, Iraqi forces continue to target their radars and fire missiles at Allied warplanes despite the punishment inflicted from the air (Dodd). In addition, the death rate for small children has doubled in Iraq over the past decade. These child deaths are attributed to the continuing war and economic sanctions on Iraq.
Currently, with our president, George W. Bush, escalating threats against Iraq, he is serving notice on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the time for prevarication is over (Copson). More immediately, Bush is also signaling U.S. allies that he is prepared to go to war with Iraq without their approval. The increasingly belligerent White House rhetoric puts the Bush administration at odds with many of its European allies, particularly France, which has threatened to veto a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing a war with Iraq over its weapons of mass destruction (Copson). Even Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Bush?s most loyal supporter, has called for U.N. weapons inspectors to be given the ?time and space? to complete their work (Copson). There, however, remains a possibility that a ?smoking gun? will emerge that would persuade the French and other allies of the case for early military action (Copson). But for now the United States faces the prospect of fighting a major war with little international support.
I don?t think that the United States has the grounds, or the right to engage in a war with Iraq. The Bush Administration is using all its influence and power available to push the world into a military invasion of Iraq. The new national strategic philosophy of preemptive war that the Administration spreads is a dangerous escalation. According to the UN Charter no nation has the right to attack another. The only exceptions are if the Security Council specifically authorizes a military strike, or in self-defense. Self defense is only if an armed attack occurs. Iraq has not attacked the U.S, so self-defense does not apply. The U.S. claims it has the right of "preemptive self-defense" to go to war against Iraq, without any further authorization from the United Nations, but the UN Charter does not authorize that.
For alternatives to war for disarming Iraq, I think the U.S. should, first of all, announce that war is not a solution to disarming Iraq, and that diplomacy and truly international initiatives replace war. Then, the U.S. should support the work of the UN inspectors in Iraq, and respect the independence and authority of the United Nations as decision-maker regarding inspections.
Bush?s determination to go to war against Iraq, unilaterally or multilaterally, expresses the worldwide strategy of the U.S. for oil and controlling the oil region. A war which will victimize thousands of civilians, and the destruction of their homes and properties. Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq have nothing to do with defending the Iraqi people, or the American people. In reality it has little to do with disarming Iraq, and everything to do with oil, and enforcing a "regime change" in a country which sends the U.S. 1 million barrels of oil a day! Iraq's oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. The question of which oil companies would control Iraq's rich oil fields, once sanctions are lifted, has moved to the top of Washington's agenda. Nonetheless, GW picked a good country to start a war with. No one in the U.S. likes Saddam Hussein. He?s an evil dictator who murders his own people.
These days everyone is so familiar with the Bush administration's constant accusation that Iraq is an "evil" nation, hell-bent on nuking and gassing the entire civilized world, and possess weapons of mass destruction. But what they don?t know is that the United States provided and sold those weapons of mass destruction to Iraq, when Reagan took Iraq of the State Department's list of countries regarded as supporters of international terrorism in 1982, which opened up the opportunity for billions of dollars of imports and exports between the U.S. and Iraq. According to the estimate of the CIA and British intelligence, Iraq is years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. There is also no evidence that the Iraqi government has any ties to the al-Qaeda network.
A war on Iraq seems inevitable at the present time. Despite of Iraqi attempts to concede to the demands of the UN, this is no longer enough for imperialism which is growing impatient. The U.S. and Britain maintain that Saddam is a liar and that they will have to attack anyway. If the U.S. attacks Iraq, it will make the entire Muslim world hate us even more, opening up the U.S. for terrorist attacks. There is almost no international support for the Bush Administration?s war. Israel is the only country in the region that openly supports a U.S. war on Iraq. Israel is most likely to benefit from a U.S. war in the form of increased financial support. Israel would probably use a war on Iraq as cover for a more aggressive campaign against the Palestinians.
After researching the United States and Iraq conflict, and understanding the U.S.?s position on war, with it?s imperialistic goals, and wanting to start a war, with almost no support internationally, with Iraq, for oil, I confirmed my beliefs about the United States war on Iraq.
Since American and British forces carried out Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 against Iraq, this "forgotten" war in the Middle East has only become worse (Dodd). Since the beginning of 1999, Allied pilots have launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 Iraqi targets (Dodd). That number equals nearly three times the amount of ordnance used in the four-day Desert Fox strike. Also, the pilots in the Iraq War have flown two-thirds the number of missions as NATO pilots in the Kosovo War (Dodd). By all accounts, Iraqi forces continue to target their radars and fire missiles at Allied warplanes despite the punishment inflicted from the air (Dodd). In addition, the death rate for small children has doubled in Iraq over the past decade. These child deaths are attributed to the continuing war and economic sanctions on Iraq.
Currently, with our president, George W. Bush, escalating threats against Iraq, he is serving notice on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the time for prevarication is over (Copson). More immediately, Bush is also signaling U.S. allies that he is prepared to go to war with Iraq without their approval. The increasingly belligerent White House rhetoric puts the Bush administration at odds with many of its European allies, particularly France, which has threatened to veto a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing a war with Iraq over its weapons of mass destruction (Copson). Even Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Bush?s most loyal supporter, has called for U.N. weapons inspectors to be given the ?time and space? to complete their work (Copson). There, however, remains a possibility that a ?smoking gun? will emerge that would persuade the French and other allies of the case for early military action (Copson). But for now the United States faces the prospect of fighting a major war with little international support.
I don?t think that the United States has the grounds, or the right to engage in a war with Iraq. The Bush Administration is using all its influence and power available to push the world into a military invasion of Iraq. The new national strategic philosophy of preemptive war that the Administration spreads is a dangerous escalation. According to the UN Charter no nation has the right to attack another. The only exceptions are if the Security Council specifically authorizes a military strike, or in self-defense. Self defense is only if an armed attack occurs. Iraq has not attacked the U.S, so self-defense does not apply. The U.S. claims it has the right of "preemptive self-defense" to go to war against Iraq, without any further authorization from the United Nations, but the UN Charter does not authorize that.
For alternatives to war for disarming Iraq, I think the U.S. should, first of all, announce that war is not a solution to disarming Iraq, and that diplomacy and truly international initiatives replace war. Then, the U.S. should support the work of the UN inspectors in Iraq, and respect the independence and authority of the United Nations as decision-maker regarding inspections.
Bush?s determination to go to war against Iraq, unilaterally or multilaterally, expresses the worldwide strategy of the U.S. for oil and controlling the oil region. A war which will victimize thousands of civilians, and the destruction of their homes and properties. Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq have nothing to do with defending the Iraqi people, or the American people. In reality it has little to do with disarming Iraq, and everything to do with oil, and enforcing a "regime change" in a country which sends the U.S. 1 million barrels of oil a day! Iraq's oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. The question of which oil companies would control Iraq's rich oil fields, once sanctions are lifted, has moved to the top of Washington's agenda. Nonetheless, GW picked a good country to start a war with. No one in the U.S. likes Saddam Hussein. He?s an evil dictator who murders his own people.
These days everyone is so familiar with the Bush administration's constant accusation that Iraq is an "evil" nation, hell-bent on nuking and gassing the entire civilized world, and possess weapons of mass destruction. But what they don?t know is that the United States provided and sold those weapons of mass destruction to Iraq, when Reagan took Iraq of the State Department's list of countries regarded as supporters of international terrorism in 1982, which opened up the opportunity for billions of dollars of imports and exports between the U.S. and Iraq. According to the estimate of the CIA and British intelligence, Iraq is years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. There is also no evidence that the Iraqi government has any ties to the al-Qaeda network.
A war on Iraq seems inevitable at the present time. Despite of Iraqi attempts to concede to the demands of the UN, this is no longer enough for imperialism which is growing impatient. The U.S. and Britain maintain that Saddam is a liar and that they will have to attack anyway. If the U.S. attacks Iraq, it will make the entire Muslim world hate us even more, opening up the U.S. for terrorist attacks. There is almost no international support for the Bush Administration?s war. Israel is the only country in the region that openly supports a U.S. war on Iraq. Israel is most likely to benefit from a U.S. war in the form of increased financial support. Israel would probably use a war on Iraq as cover for a more aggressive campaign against the Palestinians.
After researching the United States and Iraq conflict, and understanding the U.S.?s position on war, with it?s imperialistic goals, and wanting to start a war, with almost no support internationally, with Iraq, for oil, I confirmed my beliefs about the United States war on Iraq.