home

Taking positions on the War in Iraq.

(In 2002, the United States began to campaign for the overthrow of Iraq 's President, Saddam Hussein . The United States, under the administration of George W. Bush, argued that Saddam Hussein was a threat to global peace, a vicious tyrant, and a sponsor of international terrorism . Opinion on the war was greatly divided between nations. Some countries felt that the United States failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein had an active weapons program. Others felt that Iraq was an insignificant and militarily weak country that was not worth fighting over. Some saw the war as an act of imperialism , and charged that the United States just wanted Iraq's oil . On the other side, supporting countries argued that Saddam Hussein was one of the 20th Century's worst despots, and that free countries should be obliged to remove brutal dictators from power. Others felt that Saddam's ties to terror groups were well-established, and his weapons programs very real. Although the U.S. has yet to find the location of the WMD's, they did find records of bank transactions from some of Saddam's accounts that paid various suicide bomber's families $25,000 in exchange for their son's martyrdom. Supporters also argue that the chemical and biological weapons that were believed to be in Saddam's control were shipped to Syria prior to the engagement and that the current existence of bio and chemical weapons labs in Iraq are an indication of Saddam's continued desire to produce WMD's. Furthermore, supporters point out that although the U.S. does have oil interests in the Middle East, so do the Islamic terror cells who want to gain control of the oil in an effort to pressure the western world. Additionally, they argue that the U.N. rejected the invasion of Iraq because of their involvement in the "Oil for Food Scandal," (established in 1995). In which U.N. and Iraqi officials skimmed money to allegedly bribe U.N. officials. Peter van Walsum, the former chairman of the Iraq sanctions committee from 1999 to 2000, speculated in a recent book that Iraq deliberatley divided the U.N. Security Council by awarding contracts to France, Russia, and China but not the United Kingdom or United States. Coincidentally it was France and Russia who were leading the opposition to the invasion of Iraq. He also claimed that sanctions were not effective and that the lack of Iraqi cooperation was designed to exacerbate the suffering of his own people. Other allegations included a $400,000 contribution from Shaker al-Kaffaji, and Iraqi-American businessman to produce a film by ex-UN inspector Scott Ritter discrediting the weapons searches. Scott Ritter points out in his October 19, 2005 interview with Seymour Hersh that the US policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power started with President George H. W. Bush in August 1990. Ritter concludes from public remarks by President George H. W. Bush and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker that the economic sanctions would only be lifted when Saddam Hussein was removed from power. The justification for sanctions was disarmament. The <span class="wiki_link_ext">CIA offered the opinion that containing <span class="wiki_link_ext">Saddam Hussein for six months would result in the collapse of his regime. This policy resulted in the US military invasion and occupation of <span class="wiki_link_ext">Iraq .)-(Wikipedia.com/Governmental positions on the Iraq War prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq)