Middle East

9 Pages 2218 Words

ountry even more.
Following the Gulf War, the United Nations placed restrictions on Iraq, one being that they were not allowed to produce weaponry, including nuclear or chemical weapons. To ensure that it was being followed, the UN sent weapons inspectors. The inspectors have said that they were not given full access, but never has any hard evidence been found to support the claims that weapons have been developed.
The United States and the United Nations have put sanctions on Iraq in an attempt to contain them. These sanctions were intended to pressure Hussein into granting unrestricted access to the inspectors, and halt any plans of building weaponry before they began. Up to this point, containment has worked relatively well, the only issue being the welfare of the Iraqi citizens. During the past few years, nothing has changed to warrant an attack. There is no reason to go to war now than there was five years ago. Iraq was not an immediate threat and thus there was still time for diplomacy.
By attacking Iraq, the United States set a new precedent of preemption. Never before has the US attacked before there was a threat, and have always tried to make sure that preemption never occurred overseas either. Now they are promoting this tactic. How could the government discourage other countries from using preemption, for example Russia and Chechnya? Where does one draw the line between preemption and attacking without cause?
Following World War II, the United Nations was set up to prevent unilateral attacks and make sure all wars were necessary. During the Gulf War the United Nations was on the United States’ side, and sent coalition troops comprised from 39 separate countries. This time the UN denied President Bush’s plea for war. If the UN does not believe w...