Weapons Of Mass Destruction Iraq Essays

Using weapons of mass destruction would mean a sure end to his power.This makes sense to prevent future terrorist attacks, but no weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq.I’m against going to war with them because there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the US government claimed.Many thought that Hussein might use these weapons to attack against The United States.One of the main reasons for the attacks on Iraq was to disarm them of any weapons of mass destruction that they have.

Even though the United States was looking for weapons of mass destruction some things were destroyed before the UN could get to them.A Major reason of why the United States entered into war with Iraq was because of the belief that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction to use upon the United States and other countries.When looking at all the possibilities of why the United States went to war with Iraq you can blame either terrorists, oil, crimes against humanity, or the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction.Some of the main reasons that the United States went to war with Iraq was because of the belief that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists in Iraq and that he had in his possession weapons of mass destruction whether th...

Throughout the war, the declaration for being at war was so twisted from saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, to Iraq “had the ability to make weapons of mass destruction,” (Bovard 250) to freeing the Iraqi people, that it is hard to understand what the end goals of the United States involvement in Iraq was.However, the most believeable claim for invading Iraq, if not for weapons of mass destruction, was to gain some sort of control or influence over Iraq’s abundance of oil.On the other hand, invading Iraq was unfavorable because there were no weapons of mass destruction found, the people in Iraq did not rise up in support of the United States when it attacked, little post-war planning was done, the task, as well as cost of rebui...

Iraq can easily give these weapons to a terrorist group who will then try and use those weapons against the U.S.Since political powers did not deem it worthy to check on Iraq and put their main focus on Wall Street, Iraq renewed their weapons program and everyone just did not pay attention.The U.S. intends to stop Iraq from developing any more weapons of mass destruction before they are used against the world.If the U.S. leaves Iraq alone, they will continue to research and build weapons of mass destruction, and they will use them to kill Americans on a large scale through terrorism.Ever since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq has disregarded these policies by removing weapons inspectors, which in turn has allowed Iraq to further research we...

Given that the Bush’s speech on 18 March 2003 did warn that “it is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.I guess that we would never know whether the Bush administration knowingly accept the false intelligence that Iraq had weapon of mass destruction and connection with terrorists or the Bush administration simply misled by incredible intelligence from CIA or other government agencies.The reason the invasion of Iraq failing to meet the requirement of “just cause” is because there is no weapon of mass destruction found in Iraq and Iraq had no connection with Terrorists.Regarding weapon of mass destruction,...

Or he could have waited a few more days for Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction which don’t exist, and if that desperate to get rid of Saddam they could have sent a sniper in to kill him.This war was over the weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam was claimed to have but even after the war no weapons of mass destruction were found, so what was the real reason of it all?No weapons of mass destruction have been found and won’t be found either, as there probably aren’t any.America itself has weapons of mass destruction and they pose a threat and a danger to other countries, but you don’t see anyone calling the US and starting war with them.Which leaves me to conclude that this wasn’t over the weapons of mass destruc...

The danger posed by weapons of mass destruction was the Bush administration’s chief justification for invading Iraq.Treaties and agreement were developed to address weapons of mass destruction to get everyone nationally to turn over weapons and prevent additional weapons from being made.In conclusion, Weapons of mass destruction consist of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks.Communication with each other is very important with ensuring everyone is on the same page and no one is in the dark, especially where the weapons of mass destruction are concerned.As a result of these attacks former President Bush believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which caused America to go to war.

Many inspections done by the United Nations could not find weapons of mass destruction.The United States was wrong about the weapons.A report in the Washington Post said “The new report from the Iraq Survey Group has confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt what most people have assumed for the past year: At the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion, Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and most of its programs to produce them were dormant.” .At least the army fought terrorists because as the war dragged on the United States did eventually find itself fighting terrorists because many terrorists came to Iraq to face the United States army.Even though the pro- war people were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction they felt that ...

In sum, an apparent widening of the current war designed to enhance U.S security could have the opposite effect.Although North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are developing (or have acquired) weapons of mass destruction, so are many other nations.Iran or Iraq might do the same to Israel.What if North Korea, Iran, or Iraq has already sent intelligence operatives or terrorists to the United States with weapons of mass destruction to lie in wait in case a strike is needed in retaliation for a U.S. attempt at regime change?The fact is that the United States must live with an increasing number of nations that have acquired weapons of mass des... ... middle of paper ... ...tegy promulgated by President Bush in September 2002 does just the opposite.

The terrorists have been made offers so a war can be prevented by letting UN weapon inspectors into Iraq and letting them check the sites which they think mite be used to make weapons of mass destruction, these offers have been rejected or have conditions put on them by Saddam Hussein.In 2001 Iraq gathered $3 billon illegally.Information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is already in public domain from UN reports and from Iraqi defectors, this clearly points that Iraq continues to posses these weapons and also shows that Iraq, has refurbished sites formally associated with the production of chemical and biological agents and it indicates that Iraq remains able to manufacture these agents and deliver them via bomb, shells artiller...

In this report, it was made vividly clear that the preparations for the Iraq operation were insufficient and hastily assembled.The Operation is also known as the Iraq War/ the War in Iraq/ the Occupation in Iraq or the Second Gulf War.It was even mentioned in several of the sources for this paper that one of the reasons for the military invasion from the United States was because of the found presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.The Coalition Provisional Authority was part of the coalition force that stayed in Iraq to help the country get back on its feet.When the United States-led invasion of the Iraq commenced in March of 2003, the Iraq military was defeated in a short amount of time.

Even if America is still not able to prove it claims regarding presence of weapons for mass destruction in Iraq.Attack on Iraq was also a continuation of War against terrorism due to charges of human rights violation, coalition and support to extremist and terrorist groups coupled with construction of weapons of mass destruction.” (The Iraq study Group report December 2006) The war in Iraq is a war between ideologies, it is a war between rights and wrong, it is a war between justice and cruelty but the American Nation as one unit need to develop consensus towards the future strategy against war in Iraq because it will not end unless it will be fought on all possible grounds rather than military and force because weapons can only create d...

Other terror groups might react violently and there might be more destruction.In the past few years, we had seen multiples terrorist attacks and the most major one being the destruction of the Twin Towers.Who knows that maybe the weapon of mass destruction might be the Boeing planes that were used to destroy the twin towers, so President Bush should eliminate all the planes instead.He wanted to make sure there were no weapons powerful enough to endanger the world, he wanted to improve the well-being of the country and let the people get free from dictatorship.Terrorists did not originate from Iraq, they could be found in many parts of the world, so why did President Bush want to eliminate the terrorists in Iraq only?

[8] According to the U.S. view, a rogue state is one ruled by authoritarian regimes, possesses weapons of mass destruction and advances terrorism.The three challenges posed to the Charter by the rogue states are identified as, (1) the armed attack or force employed by the rogue states does not fall squarely under the Charter concept of ‘armed attack;’ (2) the rogue states commit acts against its domestic inhabitants/people which are considered gross violation of international human rights law but these acts are not considered constituting international aggression; and (3) possession of weapons of mass destruction does not fall under the definition of armed attack but such possession threatens peace among the international community of na...

Unfortunately, the inability to locate the so-called “weapons of mass destruction” has also cast a serious doubt on the intentions of USA and UK in the minds of millions residing in their own countries.And if the countries surrounding Iraq are themselves grasping for survival and development, the onus does fall on developed nations to resolve the stalemate.Negotiations since 1995 were not bearing any fruits other than letting Saddam to build a black economy of earning billions despite the sanctions imposed on Iraq.” Where are those weapons of mass destruction now?After explaining the threat posed to the region by the Iraqi regime, he lamented “I am quite clear that Saddam will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide th...

In its ongoing negotiations with the UN, Iraq has tried to get removal of the sanctions as a condition for agreeing to further weapons inspections.An invasion would involve further destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure, already reeling from twelve years of sanctions and bombings, thus weakening the prospects for the creation of stable, democratic institutions in Iraq.This seems to me to suggest that the USA want an attack on Iraq so badly that they will use any excuse possible to try and justify their cause.Already enough harm has been done to Iraq, the sanctions against Iraq, the most severe ever imposed on any nation, have contributed to the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians and have devastated Iraq’s economy.Yes Iraq should not be al...

It was used to Hussein to be taken under control.” The claim about the weapons has evidence to support it.He sounds like he has significant evidence to back up his speech, until he said “Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon.He said things such as: Iraq’s technological abilities, their weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein’s previous threats against the US.One of the problems was that Iraq possesses an d produces chemical and biological weapons, and they are also seeking nuclear weapons.

Russett, B. M. No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the United States Entry into World War II.Official Rebuts Story of Iraq Intelligence Shortcomings; Says Leaked Classified Report Was Misread regarding Weapons Program.(Russett, 1997, p. 51) Although ambiguity persists in the public perception of the contribution of the United States intelligence services to the build up toward the Iraqi War, official statements by high-ranking intelligence officials who served during the time period in question maintain a specific position: that the U. S. possessed credible information that Iraq maintained an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and these weapons posed a potential threat to America.The Washington Times, p. A03.Since no wea...

Hollywood films are using the stereotype of Muslims being terrorists in order to generate profit, such as ‘The Siege’ movie on a terrorist attack in New York, Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis (Crude and exaggerated) Demonizing Muslims as evil, dangerous and threatening, reinforcing prejudices.Axis of evil: is a term initially used by the former United States President Bush in his Address on January 29, 2002, and often repeated throughout his presidency, describing governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction.Al Jazeera offers an alternative angle than the west, as a middle eastern based institution, it puts across an argument both for and against events, giving a relatively un-biased story.It...

The success of the United States foreign policy towards Iraq has not been largely seen by many especially in the knowledge that the war in Iraq had been largely criticized.This proved to be exercise in futility as the weapons were never found.Allied forces led by the United States liberated Kuwait and enforced a United Security Council resolution to dismantle all the held weapons of mass destruction by Iraq through an operation by the United Nations Monitors.The reasons for the attack are still unclear, as Stefan H and Jonathan C (2005, 155) notes “weapons of mass destruction links with al-Qaeda, human rights abuses – covered a wide and ever changing kaleidoscope”.Bush administration had misrepresented information on the urgency of the w...

They were hungry and Hussein was pocketing the money from the oil that Iraq sold, and using it for himself (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq).The Iraq economy hadn’t been the best and Kuwait had oil, so Hussein argued that Kuwait belonged to Iraq and invaded.In fact, Brittan, France, Germany, Russia, and Jordan also all believed that Iraq was developing WMDs (Justifications for the War).Also, in 1998, Hussein wouldn’t let any United Nations weapons inspectors into the country (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq).There is no reason to regret the actions taken by the U.S. against Saddam Hussein and Iraq in March 2003. .

” Majorities in the UK and Canada believe the war in Iraq is “unjustified” and are serious of their governments’ support of U. S. policies in Iraq.All neighbor countries of Iraq came together in late 2002 stating that they did not want a war against Iraq to break out.It does however appear that the administration of Bush relied upon their intelligence reports on illegal Iraqi programs of production of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons to the degree that they were certain that inspections would convince the international society of the danger imposed by Saddam Hussein.“Global Terrorism after the Iraq War”, www.Kenneth Katzman, “Iran’s Activities and Influence in Iraq”, www.

Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction .What is proven is that the Iraq War, like its predecessor, the Vietnam War, was begun with a Big Lie for which the liar has not been called to account.He even sent his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on the speech circuit, saying (Rumsfeld) personally knew where these weapons were located.The Bush Administration did not want the truth out for the obvious reason of the comparisons that can be made to his untruths concerning Iraq.It has also been suggested that the Iraq War is being fought for the Haliburton Theory, in which American troops have seized Iraqi oil to increase the profits of an American corporation under the control of the sitting vice-president.

This argument was advanced even before the war even with the belief that he had weapons of mass destruction.For the majority of Americans, the question of whether the war was worth fighting revolves around whether the weapons of mass destruction were recovered or not.The administration believed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and thus rushed to conquer the country before they could fire any weapon.The act provided for the transition of Iraq to a democracy following the withdrawal of United Nations weapons inspectors.Another primary motive which was however not stated with regard to the invasion of Iraq was the consolidation of oil resources in Iraq (Holtzman, 2006).

Troops were sent in to, supposedly stop Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction that he was rumoured to be hiding.Retaliation towards the other side only to cause destruction, with no benefit towards the end goal, is considered wrong under ‘No reprisals’.However, there was no evidence of these weapons existing, only rumours.All countries are required to obey all the international laws on weapons, this is the supposed reason that the US and Britain initiated a war in Iraq, as they believed that Saddam Hussein was illegally hiding ‘weapons of mass destruction’.An example of when intentions were questionable was when British and US troops decided to invade Iraq, going against the UNs decision.

Among XI articles, article I obligate all the nuclear-weapon states undertook, “not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever unclear weapons or other nuclear explosive, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices” (UN’s charter).One of other Global Treaties on Arms Control that focus on the weapons of mass destruction was the Chemical and Biological Weapon Passing.The five members that well-known as the nuclear-weapon states were the United States, the Soviet Union, the UK, France, and China; article II obligate all non-nuclear-weapon states to undertoo...

This affects the public substantially as, due so certain bits of information being hidden, they may never know fully weather the war was legal and for the right reasons.This inquiry is the perfect example of power in politics, from Tony Blair using his power to ignore the UN, to Gordon Brown using his power to disclose parts of the inquiry which will inevitably show him and other Labour ministers in a bad light.The main focus however revolves around the intelligence which was available surrounding possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the decisions made based on this, including ‘events at the UN in the run-up to war, including the negotiation of UN Security Resolution 1441’ (bbc.co.uk, 2009) This found Iraq in breach of the ce...

Another great influence in the decision to attack and invade Iraq were the republicans in which were really persistent in the promotion of war against terrorists.The prosecution of Saddam Hussein became the last reason for the United States to occupy Iraq.The situation of Iraq war was influenced by different actors within the international community.p. ) References Masters, D. S. and Alexander, R. M. (2007, Mar) “Framing War: The 9/11-Iraq link and public support for the Iraq War” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the WESTERN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, La Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada.The most significant personality in the Iraq war was President George W. Bush Jr.

With such unrealistic goals, it may be impossible to ever declare victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.Some people would say that the USA/Australian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are completely pointless, ‘Like Vietnam, this war cannot be won’.The United States defended Kuwait in the Persian War against Iraq.The lessons learned from the Vietnam War were forgotten when Australia decided to join the United States of America, who were planning the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.A lot of lessons were learned throughout the Vietnam War but those lessons were not carried out in the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

The US army is believed to have made over 300 inspections by now, but has unfortunately not been able to find any such weapons, and even if there was any existence of such weapons then the army would have used them against the army when they firs attacked, however it was a rather peaceful conquer of the entire country which was claimed by the politicians to be a major threat to their country and the war just a mere act of self defense.html Green, R. Introduction to the Iraq War Essays.James Fallow, like many other elite journalists through his writing explicitly shows his opposition towards the Iraq war and openly describes it as US’s stance towards terrorism, “If [the United States] did not have to attack, then it should not go ahead, n...