Why the Persian Gulf War Was Not Iraqs Fault

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 51
  • Published : October 8, 1999
Open Document
Text Preview
At 2:00 A.M. (local time) on August second 1990, Saddam

Hussein sent the Iraqi military across the border into Kuwait,

and sparked a war whose repercussions are still being felt.

Today what eventually became known as the Persian Gulf

War, featured the largest air operation in history; and a

senseless destruction paralleled only to Danzig or Hiroshima.

Even though Saddam was the one who physically invaded

Kuwait, is balking at United Nations resolutions, and is

generally known as a tyrant. He should not be destroyed .

The Gulf War was nothing more than the United States

attempting to establish, as former President Bush so aptly

termed, the "New Order". The United States supported

Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime prior to the Kuwaiti

invasion. They even gave Saddam a "Green Light" to go ahead

and invade. If Saddam were to leave power Iraq would either

be plunged into a Lebanon style civil war or face another ruler

no better than Saddam himself. The United States is

contemplating another invasion of Iraq, however it is having a

difficult time of gaining support of the Arab countries. While

many people in this country believe Saddam Hussein should

be destroyed, that he is a totalitarian dictator and gross

human rights violator. He is, in fact, a stabilizing force in his

country and the Middle-East, standing up to the only

remaining superpower.

The consensus currently prevalent in this country is that

Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, is a totalitarian dictator,

thirsty for blood and prestige, who seems dedicated to

disobeying the United States. It would seem Iraq is intent on

keeping United Nation inspectors out of its own country,

although technically "Iraq barred only American members of

the inspection teams from carrying on their work"(Nelan 54).

The Iraqi "Dictator" seems to have decided he would rather be

bombed than inspected. He apparently has no regard for the

international community, and yet still wants them to lift

sanctions. Also the Iraqi:

"government stopped Ritter from investigating sensitive sites,

calling him a spy and complaining that his team was too

‘Anglo-American'... the Iraqis also revealed Ritter was looking

for evidence Iraq tested chemical and biological weapons on

humans - charge Baghdad called ‘a shear lie'" (Watson 34).

Those reports of human testing are obviously false. "[E]ven

Saddams strongest foes, including the C.I.A. seems to doubt

them(Watson 34)". In fact, the only testing done by Iraq was

on dogs. There were no inspectors around when the U.S.

committed the crimes at Tuskegee, or when hundreds of

servicemen were exposed to radiation during the atomic tests

in the sixties. The Iraqi "dictator" has stayed in power for

some 6 years since sanctions were imposed. The sanctions

were imposed supposedly to punish and weaken Saddams

power, freeing the people to take up arms and oust him.

However, the sanctions have hurt only the people of Iraq, and

if anything have strengthened Saddams position. If Saddam is

a human rights abuser as many maintain then, the U.S. is a

human rights abuser as well.

When the Soviet Union fell, the United States became the

sole superpower, thus, many countries no longer fearing the

U.S.S.R. began to loosen their ties with the U.S. The U.S.

soon found itself in a precarious position. It needed to a

reason for other countries to appease the U.S.; the country

also needed to demonstrate "the 'New World Order' in which

a post-Cold War United States could operate without the

bothersome constraints of another world superpower"(Simons

3). The United States found itself in a unique position

immediately following the collapse of Communist Russia; it

was now the only superpower, with the most powerful military,

economic, and political might. It now needed to demonstrate

tracking img