War on Iraq-A young persons view an exclusive for Asian Image

Should we go to war with Iraq? Is it just for Oil? Should Britain join America in the war? I didn't know! Sure I knew what everyone else was saying my parents, friends, Blair, Bush but I didn't have a solid opinion myself. So I got thinking and these are the conclusions I came to.

First let's look at why we should go to war against Iraq. Bush and Blair are telling anyone who listens that Saddam Hussein has nuclear and biological weapons and that he intends to use them. Anyone who has these types of weapons will obviously be a threat.

Iraq are currently playing hide and seek with the UN inspectors after throwing them out in 1998 they have only just let them back in and if Bush and Blair are to be believed then Iraq are playing hide and seek with the weapons and this is just a delaying tactic. They also believe that as soon as Saddam gets a chance he will funnel out smallpox and anthrax to terrorist organisations who will then attack Britain or America with catastrophic results. Now the threat of a terrorist attack on Britain is a worrying thing and I for one definitely don't want to see that happen.

However the biggest revelation could be from Adnan Saeed al-Haideri an Iraqi civil engineer who had close contacts with Hussein's regime. Haideri fled from Iraq last summer after a spell in jail on what he claimed were trumped up corruption charges. He quickly contacted the Iraqi National Congress (INC) a group set-up in the early nineties with the removal of Hussein as its aim, it is mainly made up of defectors from Hussein's regime.

Haideri claimed that since 1998 when the UN weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq Hussein had quickly accelerated his efforts to rebuild his programmes to design and manufacture chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in a series of hidden bunkers which al-Haideri's company had constructed and maintained. This if true is a shocking revelation and if true surely this gives the case for war against Iraq more support. Al-Haideri's claims are key in the Bush administration campaign to get support for the war on Iraq.

However the sticking point about the evidence provided by Haideri is if it's actually true. In particular the focus is on the INC. The INC wants Hussein overthrown and critics believe they intend to do this by persuading America to attack Iraq. The INC is consistently producing defectors who critics believe have been schooled by the INC to tell the Americans what they want to hear (Iraq has weapons of mass destruction) and tend to exaggerate things. Doing this will guarantee them pensions and employment by the INC and America.

This brings me back to when I was watching the news and when I realised I didn't have a viewpoint on the Iraq situation. The date was the 15th February when millions of people gathered around the world to protest against a war on Iraq. In Hyde Park I was seeing two million people gathering to protest against a war amongst them were Dave my Media Studies teacher and Ibby a friend of mine. As I sat there watching the news broadcast from Hyde Park I thought what made Dave and Ibby feel so strongly about this issue to go down to London and join two million other people and protest against a war.

Firstly there is no proof that Iraq actually has any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq probably does have weapons of mass destruction but as the old saying goes they are 'innocent until proven guilty'. Perhaps the most infuriating thing for people against a war on Iraq is not only the lack of evidence but also the apparent double standards being shown by America and Britain.

Whilst there is no proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction we know that Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Furthermore India and Pakistan came very very close to using them so do they not present a 'clear and present danger'. The main argument for war is that Iraq have weapons of mass destruction and intend to use them, well what about Israel, Pakistan and India they don't just have the weapons for the sake of having them they obviously intend on using them.

Secondly we have the Israel and Palestine situation another case of double standards. The UN as well as the EU have condemned Israel's actions. Since Arial Sharon came into power over half of the killings committed by Israel on Palestine have been innocent civilians mainly women, children and the elderly. Sharon isn't going after the terrorists who are behind the suicide bombings rather going after innocent civilians.

Despite this the US still support Israel and continue to provide them with weapons. As well as this Israel retained Palestinian funds, restricted trade and investment as well as restricting water access. This has infuriated anti war protesters who feel it is unfair for the US to support Israel despite all this and continues to go after Saddam for having weapons of mass destruction that at the moment don't exist! I was beginning to see why two million people protested in Hyde Park.

Looking at it from Britain's point of view there are issues on whether they should back the US and go to war with them. Firstly there is the support of the British people. Could Blair really think of going to war without seemingly the support of the majority of the population. Another major issue is that of the UN weapons inspectors. Many feel they should be give more time in Iraq and in particular France, Germany and Russia. This is another issue Blair is faced with.

Europe seems to be split on whether there should be a war against Iraq. As Britain is a member of the EU will they go to war without the support of the key European countries. This is a key issue and Blair must address it.

Finally there is also the theory that the whole purpose of the war will be to get hold of the vast amount of oil in Iraq. Many believe that the US wants the oil that is currently in the control of Saddam Hussein.

I could probably go on for pages on why we should or shouldn't go to war. After looking at the issues regarding the pending war I have developed a viewpoint on the whole issue, here goes.

We are hearing Bush and Blair say that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them. Well to that I say where is the proof of the weapons and his intentions to use them? Even if there is proof why from what Blair and Bush are saying I can gather that Saddam is the main threat not Iraq. So do we really have to bomb the whole of Iraq kill thousands of innocent people just to get to Saddam. Surely we can capture Saddam without all the bloodshed. I also feel that the blatant double standards shown need to be addressed.

Let's treat everyone equally and sort out the Israel-Palestine mess. I have no doubt that Saddam has a tyrannical regime in Iraq and I do agree with the idea of overthrowing him but in a different way. When we went into Afghanistan it was to capture Osama Bin Laden two years on and Osama still hasn't been caught, whose to say the war on Iraq will be successful?