What is your perspective about the war in Iraq?

Question

This is for my sociology hw. I need opinions from people who live in the first world country (ex: rich countries such as US, Canada, Japan,...)

Answer 1

Heres a random jumble of mine and my partners speeches from our Iraqi War Debate.....have fun....haha...for you that actually CARE and know what you are talking about...and actually HAVE opinions.


In a press conference on November 11th, 2002, Scott McClellan stated "War is a last resort." McClellan was the press secretary for the President of the United States . War was not the last resort. Plain and simple. Yes, we had problems with weapons inspectors in Iraq. So, as soon as they don't let us inspect a certain part of Iraq, we go to war? Is that a last resort? We had plenty of time; they knew they were under surveillance, so they wouldn't have used the weapons that Bush claimed they had. They were very vulnerable at the time and would not even think about using weapons if they had them. As I said, we had plenty of time to watch. We have unmanned spy planes which could have surveyed the country for a couple months to look for possible weapons factories and storage facilities. We could have kept a very close eye on the Iraq, checking their every move, and could have made sure nothing suspicious was going on. After all, Iraq is only the size of California . Even if Iraq had the weapons, they would have no way to attack. The president had no strong evidence to invade, and no reason why it should have been so precipitous.

After 9/11, we attacked Afghanistan to show that the United States retaliates when attacked, because that's where the terrorist organization responsible for attacking us was based. After Afghanistan, there were few further attacks in the world, but when we attacked Iraq, there were such bombings as the London train and bus bombings, bombings in Spain, other bombings in Europe, and bombings in Indonesia, Eastern Africa, and the rest of the world. Afghanistan showed the world "we retaliate when attacked". Iraq showed the world "we hate Muslims". We should have focused on Afghanistan. Afghanistan was our real threat. The director of the CIA, Porter Goss, stated to a senate select committee, and I quote, "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists. These jihadists that survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries." End quote. Iraq is not protecting the U.S. from terrorists, it is creating a bigger, more powerful threat to the security of the United States of America and its people. DO NOT say that the Iraq war was necessary to the safety and protection of the people of the U.S.

If you argue that the war on Iraq was for "regime change". This is not true, because in his State of the Union Address in January, 2003, President Bush made absolutely NO statements regarding the liberation of Iraq. It was ALL about the failure of Saddam Hussein to disarm, which was based on false intelligence, and now proven fully and totally wrong. After no weapons of mass destruction were discovered, the Bush administration turned the war around, making it "the liberation of Iraq". Whereas before the war, it was all about them having weapons of mass destruction.

The United States of America has almost 10,600 nuclear warheads and long-range nuclear missles. We have 90 Uranium mines in the United States. We have 1,351 nuclear warheads in Nevada alone. There are U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in Belgium, Britain, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, and Turkey. (www.brook.edu/FP/projects/NUCWCost/50.HTM, the Brookings Institution) Bush claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but came up with no solid evidence. There is, however, solid evidence that North Korea possesses 5 to 6 nuclear weapons, Iran has 2 to 3, and Israel has over 100. Also, every permanent member of the UN security counsel (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom) possesses Nuclear weapons. Why Iraq? What is so wrong with other countries having 5 or 6 nuclear weapons, when we have 10,600.

Also, the thought of Iraq possessing chemical weapons is completely bogus. (This was the main subject of Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address.) The said to be 'weapons factories' in Iraq have turned out to be nonfunctional and often in ruins. The gas centrifuge facilities used to produce chemical weapons emit gamma radiation, which is easily detectable by satellite. The three types of nerve agents formerly made in Iraq, two of which are Sarin and Tabus, have a shelf life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they would be now storing is nothing but useless, harmless goo. If Iraq was producing weapons, we would have had definite proof, plain and simple. Not a jumble of random intelligence that the president claimed to be, and I quote, "solid evidence that Iraq, today, has nuclear weapons". In a speech on Tuesday of this week Bush said, ''It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong, as president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."

((((There is also no evidence that Iraq worked on smallpox, Ebola, or any other horrific nightmare weapons the media likes to talk about. Iraqis made Anthrax, and weaponized it, but we blew up the facility in 1995, even if some escaped, Anthrax germinates in 3 years, becoming useless. There was no way Iraq had biological weapons. Saddam would not be able to replace what inspectors destroyed in the early 90's. They would have to start from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research. This would be extremely easily detectable. If Iraq somehow obtained some long range missiles, they would be detected, because you can't test missiles indoors.)))

We had plenty of time to invade Iraq, we should have taken our time and figured out the exact situation, before entering a war that has cost the United States lives, money, and world reputation.



If we really wanted to get rid of Saddam, it was as easy as indicting Saddam Hussein and his top lieutenants for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Iran-Iraq war. They would be removed from power, allowing for a new government.


We COULD HAVE taken more time going into Iraq. It was not an immediate threat to the United States, and now since we jumped the gun, we have found that it was not a threat at all, when we had plenty of time to assess the situation. This war is not getting rid of the terrorist threat to our nation, it is creating more enemies. Our war is just another form of terrorism, as we have killed over 30 thousand innocent Iraqis. We needed to focus on Afghanistan, that is where the threat was. We have showed the Muslim people that we hate them, and we are making them hate us back. The WORLD is against this war, and we are too ignorant to notice. Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Saddam had no weapons, and we could have figured that out if we didn't move so fast. The Iraq war, was a precipitous, ignorant act. We should have taken more time, and assessed the situation, before entering a war that has cost us over 2,000 lives, and over 200 billion dollars.

The War in Iraq is not justified. To protect our freedom to live we must destroy Osama bin Laden. Saudia Arabia, not Iraq is the homeland of Osama and most of his 9-11 suicide squad. Entering the war in Iraq has only created more terrorists. 9-11 has been described as an unintended consequence of the 1991 Gulf war. Certainly experts agree, Osama has little genuine interest in the plight of Palestinians or other Mid east issues. Osama stated casus belli and recruitment tool was the U.S. violation of sacred Saudi soil. Before President Bush declared war he was supposedly full of evidence to support his reasoning. Although both houses approved of the war, it was only due to false evidence. Bush' disinformation campaign contaminated public discourse. There is no evidence justifying a war. The Bush administration had claimed to have it but they never produced it- either to make their case to the American public or (as far as we know) to guide the U.N. arms inspectors who have asked for it. According to a Pew poll last October, Political scientist Charles A. Kupchan states occupying Iraq is a disaster and I quote 'You ought to see a therapist if you want to occupy Iraq, it's just the last place I would want to set up shop. The whole region is deeply anti-American. They'll probably be dancing in the streets for 24 to 48 hours and then they'll take up sniper positions. That's where I think things could go wrong with barracks exploding, etc. If that were to happen at the end of the day it would cause us to pull in our horns and cause Americans to say 'What have we gotten ourselves into?'' Un quote.

This War has caused America to lose an asinine amount of respect and value with the world. This war is creating enemies around the world, and most people despise of our policies. We are losing friends and allies. According to a survey last September 69% of Britons do not agree with this war ( www.work.column.edu, Protestants for the commons good). 70% of the Pakistani public say they hold an unfavorable view of our country. In Turkey, only 28 percent of their people support our war on terrorism. 66 percent of the French public opposed our policy in Iraq, and 75% believe that the main reason the US would go to war with Iraq would be that the U.S. wants to control Iraqi oil. In a poll in the United Kingdom, 81 percent said that the United States government has not proved the point for war. We are making everyone despise the United States, our country, our home.


Saddam had no connection with Al Queda. In a press conference on January 31st, 2003, Adam Boulton, a reporter from Sky News in London, asked the president, and I quote, "Do you believe there is a link between Saddam Hussein, and extremist groups, namely al Queda?" end quote. Bush then replied, ''I can't make that claim" He said it himself. There is no identifiable connection with terrorists and Saddam Hussein. In fact, the Islamist Fundamentalists are mortal enemies of the secular Iraqi Bathists. As for the Regime change? We have no right! Saddam was a tyrant, but nobody elected us sheriff of the world. It is not our right to depose or assassinate leaders of other countries, and it's not a good precedent to propose.


The rest of the world is seeing things different, and more accurately than we are. Did you see the rest of the world so excited about attacking Iraq? This war for the purpose of 'regime change' would not be legal under international law. Article 2, section 4 of the UN charter states: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


We claim these people are terrorists. They hate us. They want to kill us. Ask yourself, Are we any different? We are being taught that these are horrible people, most people would kill them if they had the chance. Is going into their country thinking they have weapons and bombing their country any different than them trying to kill us? Bombing of civilian population is a form of terrorism even more deadly than the low tech terrorist street bombs. The people of Iraq are for the most part, innocent. We went in there, and now terrorists are going to their country, to kill us. So Saddam killed some of his people, correct? As of 12/13, there have been 30,892 civilian Iraqis killed as a result of our war. Bush even admitted this in a speech on the 8th of this month. Saddam killed them, we killed them, what's the difference?


The United States has lost over 2,150 soldiers in Iraq. Is it worth the loss of life of our young men and women? Is it worth the hopes and dreams of 2,150 human beings, crushed, gone forever. Our men and women, who died in a war, based on false intelligence. At what point will we wake up, and realize it? They had lives to live, and dreams to fulfill. Those people also had friends and family, whose lives will be changed forever, and will have to go on with a piece of their lives missing. We have seen the shock in our school, in our community when one person dies. That has gone on 2,150 times. Is this war worth it? Is it worth the loss of over 30,000 innocent Iraqis, and over 2000 American lives? Is it worth the agony, the grief, and the loss of life?


This war violates established precedents and principles of international law that it sets back the progress of the past 60 years of U.N. development. A war on Iraq for the purpose of 'regime change' would not be a legal war under international law. Article 2 of the UN charter states: 'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of any force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The people of the United States have been affected greatly. Each mother, father, child, and infant owe the United States Government over $27,000 according to Mrs. Metz, and this war isn't helping. We do not need more expenses, especially when expenses aren't benefiting the U.S.


It was said even before the war began that the predicament of the cities, and the economic problems afflicting all 50 states will take a back seat when the country goes to war. Now, recently a portion of our country face a little something called Hurricane Katrina. Did any of you catch a glimpse of that? Our country was hurt, one of our most poverty stricken cities was in dire need of the government, but the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies (www.pnionline.com Philidelpha Daily News) , and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money. The problem folks is that we could have had the finances, we could have had the troops, we could have saved American lives. A democracy is about America looking out for America, not President Bush looking out for his oil stocks.


As for now, I believe our best bet is to divide the country into three separate nations.

I haven't heard a better plan.

Answer 2

Wars are continually approximately energy. One part needs it the opposite part needs to hold it. The man or woman or organizations that search energy makes use of ideology (in a single kind or one more) to flame the loads to desire to make battle. The historic wars had been approximately the energy of kings and devout leaders. Note that after the loads upward thrust-up that is referred to as uprising (the loads haven't any energy besides in numbers and that is why it's primary to vote ...safeguarding freedom). Nowadays the explanations are a little bit extra problematic. But someplace on the backside of all of it is energy, and maintaining manage of that energy. Power is neither well nor unhealthy it is dependent upon who wields it. Which is why the well men attempt for democracy and the unhealthy men desire to be dictators. Freedom isn't a proper all of us have got to earn it. It takes a long time of tough paintings to turn out to be a democracy. Helping different international locations reap it paves how to a bigger existence for the entire international. A common battle cry is "God is on our part!" however the faster all of us gain knowledge of that God is on no-one's part besides the part of humanity, the bigger off the sector shall be.

Answer 3

I'm in the Army National Guard, and although I signed up during a time of war, it doesn't mean that I believe in it. I can't say that I stand behind the Prsident of the United States, although all of my rders come from him. This is a personal war, and George W. Bush went in to finish what his Father didn't finish when he was in office

Answer 4

In every war throughout history the very first casualty is the truth. Even us Americans could not get at least that.

Answer 5

I've been against it since it was first proposed. In 1991.

Answer 6

THE WAR

Please take the time to read the essay below by Dr. Chong. It is without a doubt the most


This WAR is for REAL!
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005.

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most
serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine
(which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who
think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is
1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the
administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault
either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents
or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian
population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was
also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or
you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political
reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm...

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million
holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the
Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy
about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world
- German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way --
their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the
peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many
peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim
leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements --
killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the
choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists.
Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There
is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with
that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose
this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many
of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads,
bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far
from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but
rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just
wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us,
over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were
neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for
the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier
for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong
for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed
their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be
done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and
realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists
without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and
fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know
it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we
can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed
to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the
costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning.
And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves
by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full
support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to
be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death
seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the
terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary
Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we
have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights
temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII,
and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and
all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of
those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost
seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they
are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless,
that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It
concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the
treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We
have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war,
by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few
months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands,
cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing
with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own
people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently
were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all
news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought
and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not
burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading
them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.
If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the
seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the
disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look
like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the
real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say,
this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply
means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and
into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL
non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.'
That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so
good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us,
and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country
in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech,
freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone --
let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in
one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated
in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders
will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in
the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and
continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be
fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to
weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force.
Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they
abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing
each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing
from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way
that we can lose. I hope the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation
we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about!
Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our
grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians
and media of our country and the free world!