The Arguments For And Against The Invasion Of Iraq In The Year 2003 - Best Essay Writing Service Reviews Reviews | Get Coupon Or Discount 2016
Free Essays All Companies All Writing Services

The Arguments For and Against the Invasion of Iraq in the Year 2003

This paper talks about the two sides on Iraq invasion in the year 2003. The paper then presents the arguments in support of the attack against Iraq and the arguments against attack on Iraq. Thus, there are two facets of this paper: the pro and the cons. Introduction The country of Iraq was formerly a part of Ottoman Empire. It was Britain that occupied the area during World War I. In the year 1920, there was a League of Nations mandate given to it under the administration of the United Kingdom. After 12 years, Iraq was given independence and organized as a kingdom in the year 1932.

In the year 1958, a republic was announced and in the year 2003 there was a continuous military intervention in the area (Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook 2008). The last person who ruled the country was Saddam Hussein. The reason why it had a long battle with Iran was territorial dispute. It was an inconclusive and costly war since it lasted for eight years. Based on historical records, Iraq took Kuwait by force but was prevented by a US- led operation wherein the UN forces had given a part in fixing the problem.

As a result, Kuwait was liberated from its seizure by Iraq. After that, the UN Security Council gave a request to Iraq that its weapons of mass destruction must be disbanded as well as its long range missiles be scrapped. It was a requirement that Iraq should fulfill after the Gulf War (Central Intelligence Agency: The World Fact Book 2008). Due to the fact that Iraq did not heed to the request of the UN Security Council, the United States invaded Iraq and was able to seize its formidable leader Saddam Hussein.

For this matter, there were speculations that the invasion against Iraq led by the government of the United States is a questionable act. In this paper, we are going to weigh the arguments on both sides to be clarified on the issue. Arguments Supporting the Invasion of Iraq in the Year 2003 The main argument that supports the plan of invading Iraq is its unexpected weapons of destructions build-up. This argument was presented History Commons by means of listing the events that led to the invasion in Iraq based on that notion or argument. Here are the events that led to the invasion of Iraq:

1. In a letter to his law partner, William H. Herndon, Abraham Lincoln disagrees with Herndon’s argument for preemptive war. “Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion… and you allow him to make war at pleasure. … The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.

This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. ” 2. The chief of the State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs writes in a memorandum that the oil possessions of Saudi Arabia are an “amazing foundation of deliberate power and one of the supreme substance prizes in world history.

An introductory paper on the Middle East put out by the British government states that the Middle East is “a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination. 4. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger signs a “Memorandum of Understanding” with Israel obligating the US to ensure the security of Israel’s oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis. “The memorandum… [is] quietly renewed every five years” according to the London Observer, “with special legislation attached whereby the US stocks a strategic oil reserve for Israel even if it entail[s] domestic shortages—at a cost of $3 billion in 2002 to US taxpayers.

5. Iraq imports 4,514 kilograms of natural uranium from Italy. The uranium is used in the Experimental Research Laboratory for Fuel Fabrication (ERLFF) for research and development related to the construction of a nuclear reactor. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) later finds that 191 kilograms of uranium is unaccounted for. In 1997, it will note, “This amount is less than the declared accumulation of ‘material unaccounted for’ and measured discards over the period 1982 to 1990 and may be considered to be consistent with the nature of the facility operation.

” The remainder is verified and controlled by the IAEA, at the “Location C” storage facility near the Tuwaitha nuclear research facility in central Iraq 6. Iraq procures “yellowcake” uranium from Portugal, Niger, and Brazil. Since neither Niger nor Brazil are members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are not required to submit the transaction to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Portugal, a signatory to the treaty, informs the IAEA of the transfers. Iraq also notifies the IAEA of the transfer in August 1981 and again in July 1982.

The total amount of yellowcake uranium secured by Iraq is 563,290 kilograms. The IAEA verifies the amount transferred to Iraq; including the loss of about 40 kilograms from a drum damaged during Iraq’s salvaging and concealment attempts in 1991. Like other uranium transferred to Iraq (see 1979 and 1982), this uranium is verified and accounted for by International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) inspectors, and is kept at “Location C,” a storage complex near the Tuwaitha nuclear research facility in central Iraq.

Later inspections show that Iraq has not been fully honest about its uranium purchases; it is not until July 1991 that Iraq declares the full amount of uranium it has received. Furthermore, later inspections will show that “considerable” amounts of uranium cannot be accounted for. By July 1994, IAEA 7. This is the time when Iraq invades Iran, wherein there was a legitimately started nine-year war between those two countries, though Iraq insists that Iran has been launching artillery attacks against Iraqi targets since September 4 of that year.

8. United States as well as British companies is among several Western firms that sell Iraq materials that can be used to develop nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional weapons 9. The US Senate unanimously passes the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988, which makes Iraq ineligible to receive US loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees and items subject to export controls. It also makes it illegal for the US to import Iraqi oil. [US Congress, 9/8/1988; Jentleson, 1994, pp. 78]

Immediately after the bill is passed by the Senate, the Reagan administration launches a campaign to prevent its passage in the House. With the help of its allies in the House, the administration succeeds in killing the bill on the last day of the legislative session. 10. After the First Gulf War (see January 16, 1991-February 28, 1991), the British Defense Ministry’s Defense Intelligence Staff creates a secret intelligence office known as Operation Rockingham. The purpose of the top secret cell is to collect intelligence that can be used by the US and British to support the case for maintaining UN sanctions on Iraq.

After the September 11 attacks, Rockingham helps build Britain’s case for the need to use military force against Iraq. 11. Faced with a lawsuit from 53 members of Congress demanding that he seek Congressional authorization before invading Iraq (see December 1990 and January 16, 1991-February 28, 1991), President Bush asks Congress for such an authorization. His carefully worded request does not directly acknowledge the constitutional requirement that Congress authorize any military involvement by the US.

After three days of what the New York Times calls “solemn, often eloquent debate,” both chambers of Congress approve the war resolution, 52-47 in the Senate and 250-193 in the House. The House passes another resolution, 302-131, informing the White House that Congress has the exclusive authority under the Constitution to declare war. 12. CIA Agent Whitley Bruner contacts Ahmed Chalabi in London as part of an effort to organize Iraqi exiles into a unified opposition movement against Saddam Hussein (see May 1991)

Sample Essay of Superiorpapers.com