As the end of the year slowly approaches, there is an expected transition of power by the United States and its allies to allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves. The media has tried to convince us that we as a nation have liberated the country of Iraq from one of the most brutal dictators in the world's documented history. Saddam equated to a modern day Adolf Hitler. Saddam Hussein would surely have destroyed the American way of life by using his weapons of mass destruction that he had been stock piling for years. And if that was not bad enough, Saddam was also said to have supported the efforts of Al Qaeda's terroristic network. Our nightly news and all of the media hype may actually have us as a nation beginning to believe this, ah, stuff, for the lack of a better term. The war has had an effect on the world. "In London, Brent Crude climbed to $38.40, reaching levels last seen following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The recent surge in oil prices has been driven by ongoing security concerns in the Middle East and a supply shortage. Global demand for oil has never been higher, lifted by heavy consumption in the U.S. And fast-growing China." (BBC World News, "Oil prices set new record highs") This report aims to disprove all of those well spun media anecdotes. The focus of this report is to show how the leaders of the United States and other first world nations have blatantly attacked a sovereign nation with the sole purpose of extracting that nation's oil reserves for the oligarchy and future positioning of the precious resource. "According to some, the Iraq crisis has been created as a pretext and cover for an "oil grab" by the United States, Britain and the international oil industry." (Yergin) Our current war with Iraq is nothing more than Blood for Oil.
Comedian Wanda Sykes said it best when she so elegantly drove a tractor-trailer up to a drive through window of a famous fast food restaurant during one of her television shows: "We need the Bush Administration to send our troops wherever they need to go because I personally like to drive a bigger family car or ah, truck." Ironically, her television sitcom is no longer on the air -- She must have struck a nerve. Iraq's economy has a very large oil sector to say the least. The nation's oil reserves produce roughly ninety-five percent of Iraq's foreign exchange earnings. "Its reserves are the second largest in the world - behind only those of Saudi Arabia." (Yergin)
Some history on the Iraqi nation has shown that they are and have not been financially stable even with all of this natural resource available. Iraq is actually an original member of the Ottoman Empire but was occupied by Britain during World War I. "In stages over the next dozen years, Iraq attained its independence as a kingdom in 1932. A "republic" was proclaimed in 1958, but in actuality a series of military strongmen have ruled the country since then, the latest was Saddam Hussein." (Iraq) In the mid-1980's, the nation of Iraq created for itself a massive financial problem due to its high expenditures to support an eight-year war with Iran. Iraq also suffered mass destruction of their oil export facilities during that war which caused them deplete income and forced them to borrow large amounts of money from the world in an effort to maintain itself. "Iraq suffered economic losses from the war of at least $100 billion. After hostilities ended in 1988, oil exports gradually increased with the construction of new pipelines and restoration of damaged facilities." (Iraq)
In 1990 when President George Bush Sr. was in office, Iraq attempted to right its sinking financial ship by invading Kuwait. After a short war with Kuwaiti allies, mainly the United States, subsequent international economic sanctions, and damage from military action by an international coalition further obliterated Iraq's financial standing. The nation of Iraq was a beaten foe long before the most recent Desert Storm Action. "However, 28% of Iraq's export revenues under the program have been deducted to meet UN Compensation Fund and UN administrative expenses. The drop in GDP in 2001-02 was largely the result of the global economic slowdown and lower oil prices." (Iraq)
If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction he was desperately in need of them throughout the...
Even the British government concurred with United States allocations that he was preparing weapons of mass destruction as the world did nothing to stop this mad man. But why did he not use them when he was losing to Iran? The weapons of mass destruction angle is one that motivates the joint chiefs of staff here in the United States to act. The United States policy against such weapons is quite clear. "Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- nuclear, biological, and chemical -- in the possession of hostile states and terrorists represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States. We must pursue a comprehensive strategy to counter this threat in all of its dimensions. (Bush Administration)
The British Joint Intelligence Committee made an argument in favor of stopping the threat as well. "In recent months, I have been increasingly alarmed by the evidence from inside Iraq that despite sanctions, despite the damage done to his capability in the past, despite the UN Security Council Resolutions expressly outlawing it, and despite his denials, Saddam Hussein is continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction, and with them the ability to inflict real damage upon the region, and the stability of the world." (Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction - The Assessment of the British Government)
Documents such as the one that suggested Hussein had the weapons of mass destruction were purposely released to the public yet the methodology behind acquiring the information was left secret. It was also unprecedented that governments like the United Sates and the Britain would release such secretive information to the public. It actually sounded more like a well rehearsed media and advertising campaign used in corporate America. The Bush administration did intend to do whatever was necessary to rectify the issue of weapons of mass destruction. "We will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes and terrorists to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. We must accord the highest priority to the protection of the United States, our forces, and our friends and allies from the existing and growing weapons of mass destruction threat. (Bush Administration) The weapons were never found!
Another problem with the war in Iraq was the fact that the United States had just suffered its most horrific attack in the nation's history. The perpetrators were not from Iraq and they certainly were not funded by Hussein. Al Qaeda was doing some evil things but that was not relevant to the Iraq situation. "Al Qaeda members "provided military training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the United Nations' intervention in Somalia... On October 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, persons who had been trained by Al Qaeda (and trainers who had been trained by Al Qaeda) participated in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which attack resulted in the killing of 18 United States Army personnel." (Al Qaeda) There was no known tie between the oil rich nation of Iraq and the Saudi funded Al Qaeda. Where was the link? The President's administration is still fending off accusations of wrong doing and covering up the fact that they had a predisposed plan for Iraq in spite of September 11th. The administration has recently found themselves having to explain how and why they tied the war in Iraq to the 9/11 situation.
Where did the information on ties to Al Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction come from? The process of gathering such classified intelligence regarding Iraq must have been very difficult to come by because Saddam Hussein was known to be one of the most secretive and dictatorial regimes in the world with only North Korea as a comparable example. Maybe that was why the governmental agencies could not be specific about their sources even though the final data was released as accurate. The Bush Administration was very clear about not being able to divulge their sources. So, could the Bush administration have been wrong about the Iraqi people having such weapons? "More than ten years of sanctions and the loss of much of Iraq's physical nuclear infrastructure under IAEA oversight have not diminished Saddam's interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons." (Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs)
The key point to be made here is that this assertion suggested that Hussein had an 'interest' in developing such programs. Every dictator in the African nation has an interest in developing a nuclear arsenal but that surely does not entail the resources to get a…
Post War Iraq: A Paradox in the Making: Legitimacy vs. legality The regulations pertaining to the application of force in International Law has transformed greatly from the culmination of the Second World War, and again in the new circumstances confronting the world in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War. Novel establishments have been formed, old ones have withered away and an equally enormous quantity of intellectual writing has
... Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud Thus we conclude that President did indeed mislead the public even though the evidence clearly indicated that Saddam or Iraq were no immediate threats to national security. This is a matter of serious concern because if the head of the state deliberately tries to mislead
Thus, Iraq has defied the economic embargo applied according to resolution 661 and has not cooperated with the arms inspection imposed by the UN Security Council through Resolution 665 (Leurdijk and Beernink, 2002). Therefore, the state of Kuwait can no longer consider itself protected by the international community and by the United Nations which it trusts greatly. The international law offers the possibility to retaliate in a manner that can
invasion and occupation of Iraq from three different perspectives. Firstly, the paper provides a historical background pertaining to the interest of energy-hungry countries such as France, America and Britain. The paper also provides a brief background of the relationship of Iraq with its neighbors and how oil has turned out to be a major source of attraction for the imperial powers. Secondly, the paper provides an in-depth perspective of
Katulis and Juul help put into perspective the tentative position of Iraq in saying that Iraq's leadership remains split on a draft version of SOFA (Katulis and Juul, online). The Iraqi cabinet must vote a two-thirds majority in favor of their support for a plan (Katulis and Juul). This may be difficult to achieve when the cabinet is divided along religious sect lines. It is, too, perhaps the first time
War Without Victory Nominally, the United States achieved victory in the first Gulf War. However, the decades of fighting in the Middle East, punctuated by the second Gulf War demonstrate that the United States was not victorious in that war. However, equally clear is the fact that Iraq was not victorious. This paper examines the politics behind the Gulf War including deterrence, diplomacy, power struggles, and military and political implications to