The Unjustified War on Iraq
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. His actions have caused fear and hate among the Iraqi citizens he ruled and people around the world. He ruled by oppression, committing atrocious acts such as testing chemical and biological weapons on the innocent civilians of his own country. During his time in power, he blatantly violated nearly all the United Nations laws that pertained to his country, and mocked those who attempted to control his violent actions. But in attacking Iraq, the United States has behaved little better than the powerful villain Saddam Hussein. Not only were civilian casualties massive, but countless soldiers died fighting and in the aftermath of the battle. Even worse, this entire war was built of false premises and misleading evidence. Going to war with Iraq was unjust, unnecessary and illegal. Was the attack on Iraq justified under the United Nations (UN) Charter? The Bush administration certainly felt that its interpretation of the articles pertaining to self defense in the UN gave ample justification for the war. According to many United States officials, attacking Iraq was legal under the UN Charter, Article 51, which states: nations have the "right of, individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occ
Now, after months of searching the many weapons facilities of Iraq, nothing has yet been found that supports evidence that Iraq had WMDs, save several scattered documents and some destroyed computers. To justify this end, the administration either ignored or conveniently reinterpreted UN articles or resolutions. His actions have certainly weakened the ability of the UN to promote international cooperation. From before the time that the speech was made, it was known that there was no uranium dealing between Niger and Iraq. We certainly have a right, not conferred, but acknowledged, in the United Nations Charter, Article 51, to defend ourselves" (Guntzel). Perhaps oil interests have driven the bombing of Baghdad and caused the deaths of countless innocent civilians. According to a report written by Wesley Clark, a retired US military general, before the war even began, "Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years to work out this problem" (Clark). The reasons given for going to war with Iraq, now that no WMDs have been found, have switched from: Iraq has nuclear weapons. "The White House ignored a request by the CIA to remove a statement in President George Bush's State of the Union Address that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for its nuclear program"(World News). As the battles wound to a close, a wave of suicide bombings swept across the country, daily adding even more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to the death count. is afraid to attack countries that have nuclear capabilities (Moore). Terrorists hope for an excessive, intrusive response by their adversary so they can recruit more supporters" (Eland). Given this, one may wonder why the US still chose to go to war with Iraq, based on frivolous claims. There is, however, no evidence for this easy connection, and, according to the Miami Herald's reporter Ivan Eland, the war would increase the threat of terrorism to the US, "Occupation of an Islamic country by the United States could be a recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists.
Common topics in this essay:
Saddam Hussein,
Charter Article,
Iraq WMDs,
President Bush,
Hussein Conetta,
George Bush,
Zunes Bush,
Security Council,
United Nations,
According Nation,
war iraq,
attack iraq,
united nations,
saddam hussein,
article 51,
security council,
bush administration,
innocent civilians,
attacking iraq,
iraqi people,
charter article 51,
bush's union address,
war iraq based,
armed attack occurs,
evidence iraq wmds,
|
Acceptance Essays
