Were we right to go to war, or should we have not got involved? Step by step ... TSK   Author:  35042  Category:(Debate) Created:(3/22/2004 5:06:00 PM) This post has been Viewed (787 times) Were we right to go to war, or should we not have got involved? Some people are saying that at the moment there have been no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq which posed a threat to the West, and, as this was the reason we went to war, the war was wrong and unjust. Let's break this down. Either: 1. there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; or 2. there are NOT weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ok, so as we haven't found any yet, then either: 3. (1) above is still true, but we have yet to find them; or 4. (1) above is not true, and we haven't found any because there aren't any. Ok, so, for a moment let's think about the most 'wrong' scenario for the coalition - that of there not being any weapons of mass destuction in Iraq (4 above). Supposing (4) is correct, is that really the basis we went to war? No, of course not, America, Britain, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Japan and Australia are all known to have nuclear weapons, and many others will have biological/chemical capability, so why Iraq? What made it stand out? Let's look at a few possibilities and then think about them. 1. Iraq was a direct danger to the West; 2. Iraq was an indirect danger to the West; 3. Iraq was a destabilising influence in the Middle East; 4. Bush wanted to finish-off a war his father started; 5. The West has a dislike for Muslims; and/or 6. The West wanted control of Iraq's oil. Ok, so what about these? 1. Was it a 'direct danger'? Could it actually launch a missile to any Western target? No, nothing like. This cannot be the reason. 2. 'Indirect danger' is much more vague. Iraq was known to fund fanatical muslim groups and pay money to the families of palestinians who blew themselves up in suicide attacks. However, these were normally targetted at Israel and so can't really be considered a danger to the West. BUT we have to bear in mind the connection state-funded terrorism had to September 11 and the fact that Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein were very closely linked. 3. What do I mean by 'destabilising the region'? Well I mean adding to the tensions between Israel and the rest of the middle east. Israel does very little to help itself and the 'merits' of the situation there is another whole topic I don't want to get into, but essentially they are a hornet's nest that does not need to be stirred-up. It would be all too easy (indeed it was tried in the first Gulf War) for Iraq (or another arab nation) to launch a missile attack on an Israeli city to spark a reaction. Israel has nuclear capability and is well-known to (over)react to situations. This sort of thing could spark a new Israeli/Arab conflict in the region far beyond what we have seen before and would suck in much of the world in its aftermath. Not a road we want to venture down. So was Iraq the only one intent on stirring this up? Possibly not, but it was the only one trying to actively do it. 4. Much as Mr Bush comes from a conservative background etc, gone are the days where one followed in the footsteps of your family's quest, not faltering until it was finished. Not only this, but Tony Blair and the other leaders who assisted in the aftermath of September 11 and the war in Iraq would not get sucked-in in some new-age crusade. Blair may be many things, but he is not stupid and it would simply not happen as it did if (4) was the reason. 5. Not at all. This is the kind of thing that is indoctrinated into young children in certain parts of the middle east and is far from ther case in the West. Muslims/Arabs form an important part of most western societies, so this reason is clearly not correct. 6. Oil. I have heard many people speak of oil and how it's all to do with oil. When you ask them "How exactly?", they reply, "well, it's all about control isn't it?". "Is it?" I ask. The West already purchases much of the Iraqi oil at prices set by an internation body (OPEC - Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries). Much of the oil wells are already owned by Shell, BP Amoco etc etc, so there is very little difference here. Bottom line, it really isn't about oil. Wow, if you've managed to read this far, you'll be wondering where that leaves us... By my count, the only possibly suggestions from above that hold any water are (2) and (3) - in that the Iraqi regime was an indirect danger to the West and it had a very dangerous destabilising effect on the region, and ultimately, the world. "The world"? Surely I'm over reacting? Well think about it this way. Supposing a nerve agent or Anthrax attack (as Saddam did to his own people pre the first Gulf war) had been launched on Israel by Iraqi agents, or even directly and obviously from Iraq, what would be likely to happen? 1. Israel would launch a savage attack back, and, depending on the severity of the damage to Israel, a tactical nuclear strike could not be ruled out. 2. Iraq would launch an appeal to the rest of the Muslim world saying that the Jews were attacking the Muslims and it is the religious duty of every Muslim to help in the holy fight. 3. The situation in the region would spiral and, with Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Turkey having nuclear capability, the rest of the world would be obliged to step in at some level. ****** I think that once you look at the simple breakdown of thoughts and steps above, the case for war, even with all its evils and difficulties, becomes all the more necessary and something that needs to be done. I appreciate that people should be allowed to voice there disapproval of such things, but I only hope that they have actually thought about it and the alternatives, and not just pulled on their multi-coloured sweater, eaten their grenola and cycled to the anti-war march. You can join Unsolved Mysteries and post your own mysteries or interesting stories for the world to read and respond to Click here Scroll all the way down to read replies. Show all stories by   Author:  35042 ( Click here ) Spring is coming