.
The stated US motive - to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction - lacks credibility because of Washington's failure to deal with others on the same terms. US allies Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenals but have not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In recent reports on the war on Iraq, it has been stated that Iraqi artillery has not been upgraded since 1991, and can be of little competition with US satellite-oriented missiles. Also, Saddam Hussein's power to exercise an impact is only high in his immediate region, and immanent, and non-existent outside. Yet Iraq is caricatured as if it were a superpower that challenges the world. This alarmist approach adopted by the US is a blatant attempt to scare other nations into backing Bush's war, when the truth is really little threat from Saddam. Marian Wilkinson made this point in The Age "if Saddam's regime can be destroyed in a matter of weeks, how can he be such a deadly threat?".
.
It is quite possible that Bush wants regime change for reasons other than disarmament. While the UN weapons inspections were in progress, the US has continually discredited these inspections with Colin Powell, US secretary of state saying that they would not "allow the process of inspection to string us on forever". Now if the US Intelligence were so sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why didn't they tell the inspectors where to look, It seems that the US are so hell-bent on invading, that when inspections were making progress, they had to find another excuse. .
Bush then began to press for an invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime "for the sake of humanity", as the overthrow of Hussein would free an oppressed nation that has endured appalling cruelty and shame. .
A major concern is possible repercussions the war in Iraq could incite. What could happen to the nation, its economy and its people? Once the war is over, America's involvement with Iraq will have only just begun.