Hussein's Iraq Of Non Conventional Weapons example essay topic

We live in a different world. Once, we could disband our enemies even nuclear-armed ones, without a major war. The Cold War proved that much. Unfortunately, that world order will be gone sooner then we may realise.

Today weapons of mass destruction, also know as (WMD), can be acquired with great ease, not only by states, but by private armies of terrorism. One can frighten or strike back against a state attacker with the threat of overwhelming force. But we do not have this option with terrorism. Peaceful solutions are constantly preferred by the military. Consequently, opponents of military action should succeed if they can establish practically, that peaceful means are available to quickly disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraq of non-conventional weapons. Few today would risk making any such clear-cut claim.

So the argument usually reverts to a less important position. A continuing process of UN weapons inspections backed by the threat of force if blocked, will serve to sufficiently contain Hussein. Even this is a bold claim, so a position has usually been staked out. Hussein might manage to produce and possess a small amount of such military hardware, but that such a unforeseen event is too remote to justify the horrors of another major war.

1. Hussein is different from every other owner of wepons of mass destruction. He has already used them against Iraqi Kurds and Iranian, killing tens of thousands of people. He has invaded two neighboring states, hundreds of thousands of deaths. So we know he is a willing attacker and user of wepons of mass destruction. His aggression against Kuwait resulted in the first international effort to disarm a United Nations member ing states.

United Nations weapons inspections have failed to do this. Inspectors who were supposed to quickly verify Iraqi disarmament was instead progressively cheated, impeded, harassed and eventually barred. Inspectors were expected to finish their job in a matter of weeks. That was 12 years ago. Go figure. 2.

Improved inspections brought about only by the United States resolve to restore hostilities unless Iraq complied with our demands have also failed. To prevent a major war, one last chance was given to Hussein to disarm via renewed United Nations weapons inspections. We then received Hussein's answer. Chief inspector Hans Blix reported that Iraq "appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it". Inspectors have reported continued Iraqi rebelliousness and non-disclosure as to the location of laboratories, shells, missiles and biological and chemical agents already known to be in their possession. We also know from intelligence sources and Iraqi defectors that additional efforts to produce and conceal weapons are under way.

3. Here we come to my third, crucial anti-war argument: that Hussein will be too tied up by inspectors to ever develops these weapons or poses a threat again. It can be answered by simply asking some questions to your self: How and in what amount of time will 300 inspectors unearth hidden material in a dictatorship the size of France, or avoid intimidation by Iraqi security forces, or avoid penetration by Iraqi spies, or evade obstruction, or prevent the suppression or repression of vital evidence? Above all, how will we deal with Hussein when he has nuclear weapons and has passed wepons of mass destruction to terrorists?

The opponents of war have no answer to these questions, seeing only the immediate horrors of conventional war, not the greater horrors of WMD proliferation in an increasingly deterrent-less world. If the United nations, which has already decided to disarm Hussein, is unable to agree to enforce its own decisions, then a coalition of willing allies remains the best available alternative. A war now can help prevent worldwide disaster later. Much much later. So now you have heard some pros and cons of.