My community and family assignment (everyone else did issues on whether there should be more parking in Byron etc etc etc).......
I like assignments which you can pick your topic. We have basically the same assignment for society and culture except we HAVE to do it on teenage binge drinking. Oh how utterly boring.
Anyway here it is.......featuring *drumroll* James, Ihath and Christina.
I am not posting the original transcripts, by the way, unless you want to read what everyone said in its entirety (not that I left out much....).
The Iraqi War
The United States’ led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is perhaps the most controversial issue of current social interest.
On September 11, 2001, the world was shaken with the collapse of the Twin Towers, marking a new era.
And a new political front.
Where once it was the “war” against communism, the world, led by the United States, had now deluged into the realms of terrorism and the fight against it.
The Iraqi war is a symbol for this sway in political tides, and has been, and continues to be an issue that can make or break various political parties world wide.
It is this reason alone I find the Iraqi war to be of interest and concern for the entire world, regardless of political spectra.
According to the White House, and seconded by many nations worldwide, hostile Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that were an extreme threat to the “free” world. This claim was used as the main driving force behind the invasion of Iraq, but was intermingled with claims of “liberation” for the Iraqi people- by removing this unquestionably merciless dictator. Thus was the case for war laid out and echoed worldwide. This caused millions of outraged citizens to rise up in protest around the world in opposition to the war with concerns about the humanitarian impact, the actual evidence for war, the US’ geopolitical objectives (most notably whether the US was indeed out to gain control of Iraq’s rich oil resources and to further expand its hegemony) and various basic, moral and ethical concerns. These concerns still ring unanswered with the complete failure of coalition forces to find the supposedly existent weapons of mass destruction.
Was the United States manipulating the public to believe the world’s safety was reliant on removing a dictator in the Middle East?
Was the “liberation” of Iraqi people more important than any second interests the coalition, namely the US, may have had? And where does this priority for Iraqi citizens come into play now?
Does the US now exert more than its fair share of global power? Is this really in the interests of the world?
These are some of the questions mingling with minds of millions as they carry out their lives in pursuit of the truth, in this highly divisive issue.
In order to find out various opinions on the Iraqi war issue, I approached three individuals to ask selected questions (see page 1 for questions).
The first person I interviewed was a 35 year old Iraqi woman known by the web name “Ihath”. Ihath currently lives in Canada and writes a popular “web log” (known as a “blog”). As a keen reader of this online journal, I thought it would be useful to contact her via email to gain a perspective of an actual Iraqi on the issue.
The second person I interviewed was a personal friend, Tina. Tina is a 16 year old high school student and lives in Western Australia. I contacted Tina via telephone and was able to obtain some conflicting opinions to Ihath’s.
The third person I interviewed was James- via telephone. James is also a personal friend and is 16 years old, living and attending high school in the Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia.
By interviewing three people rather than the mandatory two, I found that I had a lot more opinions-both supplementing and conflicting- to work with.
On the issue of whether the US and it’s allies had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, question 2, there was quite a contrast in the respondents’ answers. There was a strong notion on the fact Saddam Hussein had “committed human rights abuses”(James) however, on one hand, Tina was under the belief that Saddam was a threat to the rest of the world, because he had “terrorist links”, James was of the opinion that he had “made no active aggression towards the US, UK and allied forces”, therefore the coalition had no legitimate reason to invade. Despite this conflict in opinion on Saddam Hussein’s threat to the rest of the world, both expressed concern over his humanitarian impact on the Iraqi populous.
Ihath’s response was based on the belief that America’s reasons for invading Iraq we not valid i.e..... “ America invaded Iraq to control the natural resources of Iraq and boost the American economy”.
Flowing into the next question of whether the US acted in the best interests of the world, Tina again alluded to the belief that the world is better off without a dictator and a “terrorist” who “attempted genocide on the Kurds” however Ihath pointed out, in direct contrast with this, that Iraq is now, after the invasion, a “hot bed of terrorism” . Both Ihath and James commented on the current deteriorated situation of the world- Ihath saying it was “less stable” and James describing the invasion of Iraq as creating “an even more turbulent world environment with continued persecution and disregard for people from different parts of the world” and therefore, both believed that the US didn’t act in the world’s interests.
On the issue of whether the UN should pull the US into line over it’s defiance of it, in embarking on the Iraqi invasion, Tina, obviously said no, under the belief that the US was right in its motives for war and that “the UN was not effective in managing the situation at all and by the time they would have finished arguing, the problem would have escalated” clearly this shows the belief that the UN is not able to effectively manage a situation and supplements Ihath’s theory that the “US is the superpower, I don't think that the UN will dare to pull
into line” evidently both believe that the UN is unable to accurately control a situation- Ihath believing this is due to the might and influence of the US on the world political front and Tina believing it is just due to the ineffective inner workings of the UN. Whereas Ihath may have been answering the question based on what she thought the most probable thing that would happen to the US was, James answered on what he thought the UN should do- “the UN should immediately impose sanctions against the US and it’s position on the Security Council should be immediately revoked”.
As for the question of whether the Coalition fought a fair war, Tina declined to ellaborate- just “hoping” that they did, because “the news doesn’t tell us everything”.
Ihath, perhaps more informed and vocal on the issue, being an Iraqi herself, took the stance that it was not a “fair war” due to the unconfirmed fact that “more that 10,000 Iraqi civilians have died as
a direct result of the last war” and the belief that the “American army ruthlessly kills anybody that gets in their way”. James questioned the complete concept of a “fair war”, asking if it was “fair for anyone to lose their lives from the decisions of 3 “wise” men”. He also commented, as Ihath did, on the lack of concern for the safety of the population, highlighted with the use of “weapons which inflicted widespread suffering”, believing that the US and it’s allies were “more intent on imprisoning one man”. It is evident that all respondents were worried about the loss of innocent life, or at the very least, “hoped” that it wasn’t too widespread/caused by the negligence of the coalition.
Upon asking about the future governance of Iraq, all interviewees agreed that Iraq’s future should be in a democracy. While Tina thought that there should be imposed restrictions on the amount/type of weapons Iraq should be able to acquire, both Ihath and James commented on the concern they had regarding the imposing of a democracy by the US. Although Ihath wishes “to see a democratically elected government that represents the people of Iraq” she is “pretty sure that the US will install a client regime that is loyal to its interests”.
James’ response was very much of the same nature, saying “The majority of Iraqi’s do look forward to a democratic country, however the true nature of a government system arising from the decisions of a governing foreign council seem questionable”. A democracy that is put in place by the US and may not accurately represent the Iraqi people is obviously of concern to both of them.
Upon asking on whether the interviewees political preference had changed due to the Iraqi war, both Tina and Ihath responded “no”.
James did not directly answer the question, rather stated an observation he had made on the behaviour exhibited by political parties world wide during the Iraqi war. From his perspective, the Iraqi war showed “that politics is more about public relations than real values. Where once parties made decisions based by party ethos, they are now based on maximising their opportunities for a re-election”.
Perhaps one of the most heated debates of the whole Iraqi war was whether claims of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction were “sexed up” to mislead the public. Ihath’s response to this question was slightly ambiguous, however I am willing to make an assumption that when I asked: “Do you think the weapons of mass destruction claims were "sexed up" to mislead the public or were they a legitimate concern at the time, with the information intelligence services had?”
and she answered “Yes”, that she believed claims of weapons of mass destruction had been sexed up. James was also of this opinion. Tina however, thought that they were a legitimate concern at the time, with the information intelligence services had.
Ihath was the only respondent who further commented on the Iraqi war when I asked, showing criticism of the US’ foreign policy and it’s objectives. She believes “Iraq is just one piece of the puzzle in terms of US foreign policy in the middle east. If we study the US role in encouraging Israeli brutality against the Palestinians we will get a good insight into what the US has planned for Iraq”.
By undertaking this research it has given further proof to the fact that the Iraqi war is a highly controversial issue, in which strong opinions are shown by millions worldwide. I can see from the responses gained that the integrity of the US as a nation is very much shaped by this issue. The main criticism of the US was in its real foreign objectives and interests, and how it went about achieving them. Two of my respondents, James and Ihath, believed that the US and allied forces had no legitimate reason to invade Iraq, did not act in the world’s best interest and had little regard for the safety of the civilian population. Tina answered in direct contrast with James and Ihath, believing the war on Iraq was justified because the US acted in the worlds best interest by removing a potentially lethal threat to the rest of the world.
There not being any set right or wrong answers, means every individual is forced to reflect upon the information they are provided with, their experiences, their knowledge and their moral and value systems in order to make their respective opinions on the Iraqi war. We see in this research assignment, three vastly different individuals who have all been individually shaped by their environments to come to the conclusions they do.
The end.
: :.
