Organize a debate on the vietnam war, iraqi war or any controversial Essay

Organize a debate on the vietnam warfare, iraqi war or any controversial historical event that has taken place within 40years. Write - Essay Exampleibn Talal Hussein did non comply with the inspection, prompting the joined Nations to draft a resolution seeking for unspoiled consequences if the Iraqi leader dismissed the UN Security Councils strict inspection of the alleged dangerous weapons. Now, had Hussein not cultivated nuclear weapons, he could energise freely let the team inspect and let his conscience be freed. If there were no impositions of serious actions towards terrorism, Iraqi batch would still remain to witness a never-ending siege of terrorism, hiding behind Husseins dictatorship. Second justification, had the U.S. and its allies not launched the war, global security is at stake (Copson 4). The Al Qaeda terrorist organization has established connections with the radical leader, and the creation of nuclear weapons is a stepping stone to Iraqs claiming to prevail the world under his tutelage. The war was an indication, moreover, to other countries, which are cultivating destructive weapons to learn a lesson from the war in order for them to stop. For instance, Libyan dictator Gaddafi was reported to have ceased creating weapons of mass destruction upon knowing what happened to Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraqis were freed from the regime of Saddam Hussein, which clearly would not happen if the coupled States remained relaxed. It is a concession that war yields damages, both aliveness and property. However, it is also true that the clear and present danger posed by these weapons would turn out killing millions of people than one expected if there are no actions to stop violence and terrorism. Therefore, the war in Iraq in 2003 was worth it. Negative Sides Justifications. It is ironic to talk peace while employ violence to achieve it. This basic premise holds true to everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion and ideology. The 2003 Iraq war was an exaggerated action for an unproven claim that Iraq owns weapons of mass destructions (Prados and Ames par. 15), and posited questions to the real source of the United States in waging the war therefore, it is not worth it. First, the war killed, not just the alleged supporters of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, but including children and civilian citizens. If Husseins body is highly important, then the United States should have launched a manhunt operation against him and his supporter so as to avoid collateral damages (Abrams and Gungwu 12). Secondly, the war was a burden to the fiduciary situation of the United States and to its allies. Curtis and Payne stated that while the world enjoyed Husseins loss, the cost of the war was disproportionate (45). Third justification, the motive of the United States was highly questionable. If the war was rested on the ground of justified reasons, there would be no other reason beyond the goal of global peace. The war was not a matter of necessity, but a choice (Harvey 1) therefore, it has clear motives. To name it explicitly, the oil reserves served as an indication of economic domination. Inasmuch as the pro-war were confident(p) of the presence of nuclear weapons, anti-war was also sure that the United States, under the cloak of salvaging Iraq from dictatorship, also eyed on the rich oil reserve of the country. Fourthly, the Iraqi people were now freed from one dictator, but the leadership was governed by people with vested interests. U.S. had various allies during the war, and it is highly anticipated that economic benefits of the war are likely