Did the government have justification for the war in Iraq
On 11th September 2001, an event happened that the World Trade Centre was attacked and fell over completely. Lots of people were killed and this adversely affected America’s economy. George Bush, President of the United States, declared war on Iraq a year later, though rashly. Is it acceptable to justify a massive war joined with an ally, Britain by reasons without proofs? In my opinion, this is not justified and needed long term consideration.
Anti-terrorism was one of the reasons why America declared war on Iraq. After the incident of 11th Sept, terrorism became more serious. America was extremely frustrated with Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qa’eda group who was responsible for the incident. Bin Laden was not from Iraq but he hid there where it was also a base of terrorist organization. However, it did not mean that terrorism was originated from there and it was foolish for America, regardless of Laden’s hiding place, blindly to began invasion.
Secondly, Iraq was suspected of owning and producing biological weapons which may cause a mass destruction to the world. As Iraq failed to comply with the United Nation’s (UN) weapon inspectors, America gained no proof of saying that Iraq owned destructive weapons. For the past 20 years flouted more international treaties than any other country: scupper the biological weapons convention while experimenting illegally with biological weapons of its own; refusing to grant chemical weapons inspectors full access to its laboratories…etc. War against Iraq without a UN resolution would be a far graver defiance of international law than Saddam’s failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors.
Third, the war against Iraq could possibly develop into a massive war because of the involvement of powerful countries, America and Britain. Precedents of massive war always led to millions of deaths. It was cruel in our civilized world nowadays, if America took no sympathy on the people who lived in the battle fields and ignored all the oppositions toward it. Moreover, it was said that US treated the war as a way to earn the rich-oil in Iraq. America only considered about how to expend its power and wealth, by acquiring the ownership of the oil.
It was true that Saddam Hussein was the world’s most monstrous, autocratic dictator who violently seized control of a technologically advanced country with vast oil reserves. His bad record speaks for itself: murdering all political opponents, launching genocide against his own Kurdish minority, invading Iran in 1979 and Kuwait in 1990, and he also launched missile attacks on Israel. Was it really America’s own business? Certainly, it was the country’s own political problem which should be solved by the Iraqi government. Furthermore, was Saddam really a hard man to deal with, said Philip Knightley. How about the next generation of Iraqi leaders? No wonder many Iraqis believe Saddam has not been tough enough. If he is overthrown, someone with great deal angrier may take his place.
At last, President Bush claimed this war fought in the name of democracy, says Rosemary Hollis in The Jordan Times. So it’s rather embarrassing that his battle plans have been derailed by a parliamentary vote in Turkey, ‘that model of secular democracy in the land of Islam’. In other democracies, too, millions of people are speaking out against war. Yet Bush ploughs blithely on, turning a blind eye to human rights abuse and even torture in Guantanamo Bay and within friendly regimes, determined to reorder the Middle East ”for its own good”, regardless of international consensus or public expressions of anxiety. This approach is neither democratic nor wise to justify this war.
Are you willing to see more and more children joined in the military force and the number of death raises swiftly? To reiterate, any government has no right in justifying a war. Hence, to protect our living environment and lives, we should join the world peace campaign, hand in hand and step into a brighter peaceful future.