Saddam's Role In Going To War

One must examine the fine points of each argument that the administration had proposed for the immediacy of war in order to best refute them. The first and often most repeated argument that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States is that he possessed weapons of mass destruction. I am willing to concede that the Iraqi military possessed both chemical and biological agents. Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of them that were never accounted for after the first Gulf War. He has even used them on several occasions on Kurdish minorities in Northern Iraq. However, no proof was ever offered that he possessed nuclear weapons or the means to develop them in the near future.

When deciding whether or not it was justified for President George W. Bush to invade Iraq, one must first define what a just war is.

But while dramatically 90 percent of Americans finally view ISIS as a serious threat to U.S. national security, but there still confused on if they really threat us as a whole and the american homeland.

An invasion would imply that US foreign interests override the principles that our country is founded on. The United States is primarily concerned with oil, executing Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and eliminating the threat of terrorism. None of these concerns involve spreading the American ideals of democracy and liberty. In a recent UN meeting, the US and UK discussed a regime change and, and “the objective of which was the complete takeover of Iraq’s oil, domination of the entire Arab region, both politically and economically, and the remapping of the Middle East region.” It is selfish to put innocent Iraqi lives at stake while violating the international law, when one of our chief interests resides on economical advancements. There is no legal justification for war, and an invasion would be violating the UN Security Council Resolutions which declared: “the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for ‘individual or collective self-defense’ against

Absent compelling evidence of significant Iraqi involvement with the al Qaeda network or the events of September 11, the likely costs and risks of a commitment of American military forces to a regime-change campaign in Iraq would outweigh the benefits. A U.S. overthrow campaign would entail a large-scale military operation that the United States would probably have to undertake essentially alone; the increased risk of triggering terrorist attacks against American or allied targets; significant American casualties given the potential for intense urban combat and Iraqi use of chemical and biological agents; and the likely need for a long-term American military presence in Iraq to avoid regional destabilization. While these costs and risks are not so high as to rule out a possible overthrow policy under certain circumstances, they should be sobering to any advocate of sending U.S. troops to war to change the Iraqi regime. The central assumption behind this argument is that Saddam—unlike the religiously motivated Taliban/al Qaeda network—is more interested in

The involvement of America in Iraq and Afghanistan was ill-timed, and it was not the best way to respond to the 9/11 attack by Osama Bin Laden. The rationale of the Bush administration to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had supported Osama Bin Laden’s attacks. However, this claim made no sense going by the fact that Osama had nothing but disdain for the peculiar regime of one Saddam Hussein. Additionally, the complaint by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was hiding dangerous weapons of mass destruction turned to be false since the administration had no evidence to prove it. It later came to be known that President Bush had given an order to officials of the United Nations investigating the regime of Saddam Hussein for weapons

Prior to the August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait on the part of Iraq, the

One of the major contributors to the invasion and subsequent battle in Iraq were the United States of America, who felt that under the leadership of George Bush, were in danger. Initially, under the support of many American citizens, analysts predicted the war itself would cost in the range of approximately $50 billion to as much as $200 billion, and the recovery of Baghdad would cost about $10 billion per year. However, the legitimate costs as of March 2013, although highly contested, was estimated to have been $1.7 trillion by the Watson Institute of International Studies at Brown University. The Bush Administration's rationale and deceit for the Iraq War has faced heavy criticism from an array of popular and official sources both inside and outside the United States, which had cost President Bush’s

Moral panic is a phenomenon, in which people’s reaction to events and/or actions is exaggerated by the massive influence of the mass media. Public reaction is believed to be triggered by the hypothetical threat from groups or actions (even statistically insignificant), which are considered as deviant. Negative attitude to the phenomenon may develop even if the recipient of the news has never directly encountered it.

Saddam Hussein was the fifth former Iraq president that served nearly 24 years of presidency and killed nearly over 200,000 Iran people. The people of Iraq believed that Hussein was their protector but instead he was an out of control and unfit person that loved to go on killing rampages. While everything was happening he went into hiding realizing how bad things have gotten and six months later he was captured and ended up with the death sentence of being hanged. There will continue to be decades of negative effect from all those people he killed nearly 15 years ago. The significance of this former president is that he had good intentions when it came to not trusting the United States of America but did not quite understand the definition

Saddam’s decision to invade Kuwait was largely the result of the disappointing outcome of the Iran-Iraq war, combined with traditional Iraqi skepticism about Kuwait’s legitimacy, resentment over “stolen” Iraqi oil from the Rumaila field, and Kuwait’s overproduction of oil. The invasion was widely condemned as it blatantly violated international laws prohibiting the conquest of sovereign states and because Iraq’s presence in Kuwait posed a danger to the Gulf States. The act was seen as so egregious that even Bin Laden condemned it and offered to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam’s Ba’athism on the condition that American troops would not be allowed in–the Saudi officials rejected his offer. In response to the invasion, the Bush administration

The primary influences accountable for the actions executed by Saddam Hussein throughout his term consist of the harsh and abusive nature of his childhood which, when explored in detail, evidently show that had there been the absence of his stepfather, Saddam’s antagonistic outlook would not exist. Kairallah Tulfah, Saddam’s maternal uncle had a severe political impact on Hussein due to his support of Arab-Nationalism, Ba’athism and Nazi-Germany. Kairallah Tulfah’s influence is also integrated throughout the idea regarding Saddam Hussein’s uprising as a political figure as being a significant influence due to the resilience, determination and support that was developed throughout this time. Finally, the weaponry-aid that was provided by the

As described by Diamond, one of the major problems facing Iraq at the time was the lack of a national security. After the war, the state of Iraq had collapsed along with social order. The national security was weakened, making the people in Iraq feel unsafe. The lack of national security is very harmful to a country, especially in terms of economics growth. When the people do not feel safe, they do not feel compelled to spend or invest much. He describes that social capital, such as trust and cooperation, was missing from the Iraqi people which left the economy stagnant.

Between 1980 and 1988, the Iran-Iraq War raged between the two neighboring countries over territorial disputes. Many Kurds in northern Iraq actually sided with Iran during the war, hoping to gain the independence they had long sought. Iraqi president--or, more appropriately, Iraqi dictator--Saddam Hussein wanted to keep the Kurds from stirring up any trouble during the war. So, Hussein decided to fight the Kurds just as harshly as he was fighting Iran. The systematic extermination of the Kurds was the effect of a war, an extremist ideology, and the brutal tactics of a dictator drives a government to take such brutal actions against its own people in the al-Anfal campaign.

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created