Leaders of the United States and Britain are under relentless questioning over whether they relied on intelligence estimates that deliberately exaggerated the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to justify waging war. This is a matter of grave concern for Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi as well, since he accepted fully the American and British rationale for the war. In attacking Iraq without any specific United Nations resolution, the United States and Britain asserted that Iraq had to be relieved of its hidden weapons of mass destruction. To support their assertions, U. S.
and British troops in Iraq are still combing the country in search of such weapons. But two months after the fall of Baghdad, the search has yet to produce any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons-nor even any evidence that Iraq ever had such weapons. Hans Blix, the chief U. N. weapons inspector, questioned the nature of the many pieces of ”evidence” presented by the United States and Britain in the U. N.
Security Council before the war and has noted it is quite likely that Iraq destroyed its weapons quite some time ago. The first such ”evidence” to come under scrutiny was a British government dossier that supposedly contained detailed documentation of Iraq’s WMD development program. Released in September 2002, this dossier says Iraq sought uranium from an African nation. When the International Atomic Energy Agency analyzed the document upon which the dossier was based, however, the document itself was found to be a fabrication.
The Term Paper on United Nations Iraq Weapons Inspectors
The topic I choose was Iraq and its past and still ongoing problems with the United Nations. The reason I choose this topic as oppose to another topic is war and the United Nations has always fascinated me. With Saddam Hussein still being stubborn with UN weapons inspectors it was incredibly easy to obtain information regarding this topic. The Los Angles Times; California; Feb 12 2000; The newest ...
The dossier also stated Iraq had the means to deploy chemical and biological weapons ”within 45 minutes.’ ‘ But according to the BBC, this part of the report was ”amended” by the prime minister’s office to make it more impressive, and a senior intelligence officer has admitted the fabrication. ”Completely and totally untrue,’ ‘ British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in dismissing allegations his government had overstated Iraq’s weapons capability to justify the war. But Britain’s Parliament has decided to conduct an inquiry into whether Blair was right in deciding to wage war. In the United States, the Defense Intelligence Agency has recently admitted having compiled a report last fall that included an analysis concluding there was no solid evidence to substantiate a claim that Iraq had chemical weapons. The Senate is looking into the accuracy of the intelligence the government was given.
President George W. Bush counters criticism from Congress and in the media by saying the war liberated the people of Iraq. He is obviously determined to justify his action, even if no weapons of mass destruction turn up. Indeed, the Iraqi people are free of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. But the very fact that all these questions are being raised in the United States and Britain is proof that wars must never be waged without justification. If the two nations indeed exaggerated the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, it would be even more reason for the international community to be apprehensive about Bush’s ”pre-emptive strike” doctrine..
