The intellectual spot

Hiya all, I was actually wanting to ask you all a bit of a favour. I am studying anthropology, sociology, social identity and the like and I need to interview people from other countries, and I'll be darned if I can find a better place teaming with intelligent international people than here. Below is a set of questions I'd be thrilled if a few people could give a short response to, it would really help with my studies. A short note about your age group and background would also help so I can determine the background to you good selves.

Also, would anyone mind if I, every so often, posted similar threads? It's just this is a very good oppotunity to gain international perspective and a better depth to my work. If you say no, that's totally fine and I understand.

If noone wishes to start a row over politics, you can email me your replies at afactorysample@hotmail.com and I would be eternally grateful!

I only need two replies here, but feel free to comment or answer if you have something to say or opinions to share. Anyway, if anyone has read up to here, I'd be thrilled to pieces if you'd take a fewq moments of your time to answer the following - (some may sound stupid but they are on the sheet, so... sorry!)

1. Who was the Iraq war between?
2. How would you describe each of these opposing groups (values, motives, etc)
3. Thinking back to the public debate immediatley before the war started, what was your understanding of the reasons for and against the war?
4. Immediatley before the war started were you in support of the involvement of your country? (If applicable)
5. Have you changed your mind? Why or why not?
6. Do you think your people supported you government?
7. Any additional comment?

i don't want to be pedantic, but you do mean th most recent conflict there, do you?

Well here is some short replies. Hard to get into depth as it could take a few pages.

1. Initially, between Saddam and the US and a few allies(since the UN didn't have the balls to reenforce their "let us into your country to inspect or else")
2. Saddam: Terrorized his people to stay in control(and this is from first hand stories from Iraqis in a Shite area,Ramadi, not the media) US- Just attacked by 9/11. Wants to be preemptive instead of the postemptive approach given in the past towards terrorism.
3. Saddam was going against UN sanctions, refusing inspectors to come in his country. It had been happening for ten years that he played with the UN. It was time to stop the games.
4. Yes.
5. I am still behind it. This could be an essay in itself, so I will keep it breif. The press is stuck on WMDs and how they were not found. It doesn't matter if we found them or not, Saddam refused UN santions, and there has to be consquences to these decisions. If UN does not stand up to this, it loses all credibilty. A UN w/o credibility would let many other countries create all sorts of issues than we would be in a world of shit. Want a more in depth look? Go back to the Iran thread where this was discussed.
6. American people are fickle. They want a country overtaken on friday and democratic society running by tuesday. These things take time and work.
7. See the Iran thread from a few weeks back. Explains alot more of what I think.

Hope this helps.

JHC

I'm interesting about your subject"Thee intellectual SPOT" unfortunatley i do notl ike talkin about politic from here(Algiers)but if you want to suggest another suject about culture,human right,society, you are welcome

1. Who was the Iraq war between?

The US, some Allies, and the spectre of terrorism (aka Saddam)

2. How would you describe each of these opposing groups

Saddam/Iraq, basically a brutal but controlled regime, not really considered a threat to anyone; not unlike Mussolini's Italy.

The US/Allies, basically looking to expand their colonial influence for financial gain, whilst letting their peoples believe its to stop terrorism.

3. Thinking back to the public debate immediatley before the war started, what was your understanding of the reasons for and against the war?

Given reasons by Allied forces:

That Saddam/Iraq is a threat to the rest of the World and can mobilise nuclear weapons within 45 minutes.

Reasons understood by Burt:

Iraq has a lot of oil; we didnt take it last time (therefore: grudge), and it gives us a nice strategic position in the Middle East. 4. Immediatley before the war started were you in support of the involvement of your country?

Nope

5. Have you changed your mind? Why or why not?

Nope.. cos subsequent revelations have pretty much supported my view.

6. Do you think your people supported you government?

They did initially, largely cos of media hysteria and false government statements.. The general consensus is about a two thirds against these days.

7. Any additional comment?

Yup. Its all pants, if not conceited. A blight on democracy and the mandate we give our Governments to act in our best interests. Not the interests of capitalism.

ok, here are my answers. and they are MY answers. they don't represent the feelings of all americans, brits, or anyone else, mind:

1. Who was the Iraq war between? the so-called 'coalition of the brave' (not my words!): made up mostly of the US with help from britain, australia and a few others and the ruling ba'ath party of iraq.

2. How would you describe each of these opposing groups (values, motives, etc)? as early as a few weeks after george bush's election, bush and his advisors planned to invade iraq in order to finish the war that began in 1991 when saddam hussein was pushed out of kuwait but not removed from power. i do believe that bush wanted to 'spread democracy' in the region, but i don't think he was aware of the consequences of doing so and the instability it would bring to the region. iraq was created after WWII and is ethnically diverse. the ruling ba'ath party was sunni, even though the sunnis were and are a minority in iraq. iraq has a majority shi'ite population, with a minority sunni population, kurds in the north and marsh arabs in the south near the port of basra. at one point iraq WAS preparing and did have biological weapons. we know this because they were given to iraq by the united states during the iran-iraq war of the 1980s, at which time the united states was allied with iraq against iran. saddam hussein used these weapons against the kurds in the north in order to prevent dissent. however, by 2001, the ba'athists controlled approximately 1/3 of iraq, the rest being 'no-fly zones' into which the iraqi air force and army were not allowed to enter. this does not mean that saddam hussein had no power whatsoever in these regions, but it does mean that the iraqi military was essentially emasculated after 1991. however, the bush administration used the threat of biological (as well as chemical and potentially nuclear) warfare as a reason for engaging in a preemptive strike against iraq. i believe business interests (oil being the most obvious) were a consideration of the bush administration. privately.

3. Thinking back to the public debate immediatley before the war started, what was your understanding of the reasons for and against the war? as said above, the bush administration called for a preemptive strike as it proclaimed that saddam hussein was developing further weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and would use them. the UK and australia joined the coalition based on this information, which was presented to the united nations by colin powell, using satellite and spy plane images. to back track a bit, after 9/11 many americans were confused as to who was responsible for the attacks in new york and washington. although there was no evidence that saddam hussein was involved and, in fact, saddam hussein and osama bin laden were enemies due to saddam hussein's secularism, this did not prevent many americans from connecting 9/11 with saddam hussein.

4. Immediatley before the war started were you in support of the involvement of your country? (If applicable) no, i was not. i had studied middle eastern politics and terrorism and was aware of the relationship between saddam hussein and osama bin laden. i did not feel that a preemptive strike was the right answer as it would lead to justification of preemptive strikes against other nations, including the united states, if one state felt threatened by another state. also, considering the multiethnic nature of iraq, i believed that there was no party or person upon whom all iraqis could agree to lead the country. one cannot force democracy upon a state--it must come from within. i saw it as a deterrent from the search from osama bin laden, who the US was unable to find.

5. Have you changed your mind? Why or why not? no, i haven't changed my mind. it's played out pretty much as i thought it would.

6. Do you think your people supported you government? many did; more than 50% at the time (i don't know the exact numbers). but yes, it was a popular war at the beginning.

7. Any additional comment? saddam hussein was a dictator, and an evil one at that. but we did iraq no service by removing him from power the way we did. the country is more dangerous for both iraqis and foreigners and this war has made al-qaeda more popular as a growing number of muslims see america as an imperialist power who wants to force american-style government on other nations at any cost. democracy is a wonderful thing when it works. however, it must be developed, not forced upon a people. should we leave now? probably not, as we are partly responsible for what is happening there. not to mention if we cut and ran the US, britain and australia would look weak. to paraphrase colin powell, when he was first advising bush about the war, if you break it you've got to fix it.

1. Who was the Iraq war between? The Us, the UK,and a few other countries , many with no army to make up the numbers for the books, VS Saddam

2. How would you describe each of these opposing groups (values, motives, etc) People who want to live happy productive lives, smile, laugh and have babies lead by a fanatical madman X2

3. Thinking back to the public debate immediatley before the war started, what was your understanding of the reasons for and against the war?

among the cited reasons were a mistaken belief that Iraq was a particularly extreme muslim state, with a similarly fanatical govt. This is of course inaccurate since rather a lot of Saddam's Cabinet were in fact Christian, along with a large number of the populace. This was the idea which lead to the idea that Iraq was an Al-Q hotbed, when in fact the CIA could trace any number of hundreds of calls for one of Al-Q's major com centres to germany, the UK, France, A'stan, P;stan, you name it, but not Iraq, not one. (of course NOW it's an Al-Q hotbed cos it's somewhere for such idiots to "fight the great satan"). Most of these reasons were only emphasised after the primary reason for the war "the absolute certainty" that Iraq was building all manner of amazing doomsday weapons...none of which were ever found.....so the "terrorism angle" was played up more....although it had been there while the towers were still burning on 11/09/01. From911 timeline original source is linked from there there

"According to the aide's notes, Rumsfeld wants the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]. Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

4. Immediatley before the war started were you in support of the involvement of your country? (If applicable)

Nope, not one bit.

5. Have you changed your mind? Why or why not?

Nope, become further entrenched if anything. Why?...I get my news from LOTS of places is all.

6. Do you think your people supported you government?

Some did, more didn't...the old "support the troops" line, shut a lot of people up once it finally kicked off, and while it's a shitty trick to use the reaction is understandable if you have family or friends ordered there.

7. Any additional comment?

A pipeline thru A'stan, which is now run by a guy who used to run an oil company. And Iraq having loads of oil. AND the US being the greatest, and least giving a shit, oil consuming nation on earth, and also that no one who had dick to do with the WTC attacks has been caught and certainly not CIA employee of the Year bin Laden. ....could these facts be related...i wonder.

1. Who was the Iraq war between? Iraq well the regime actually as the armed forces didn’t seem too keen to fight and an international coalition composed of the USA, UK, Australia, and others, known as the willing. .

2. How would you describe each of these opposing groups (values, motives, etc) Hard to say what motivated this war other than to establish an us/western presence in the region. Iraq was defending itself against an invasion.

4. Thinking back to the public debate immediately before the war started, what was your understanding of the reasons for and against the war? Much the same as above.

6. Immediately before the war started were you in support of the involvement of your country? (If applicable) I was critical of it as it hadn’t been sanctioned by the UN

7. Have you changed your mind? Why or why not? No. I still think it was an illegal war.

I did not initially think that Iraq would turn into the mess it did, but it seems Bush senior knew what he was doing after all.

6. Do you think your people supported you government?

On the whole no. not in this issue. 7. Any additional comment?

It was easy to paint the Iraqi regime as the bad guys. It was an evil regime, but the war was on the whole unprovoked.

Initially the reasons given were to get rid of the alleged weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq had links with the terrorist group that carried out the 9.11 attacks. Neither was found or proven.

Now the argument runs something like, “getting rid of Sadam was a good thing.” Still not a good justification for destroying a country.

btw australia participates in these ventures, because our leaders believe that if we don't, we will loose the protection of the usa. is this protection worth it? ask yourself the question in a war between australia and indonesia, on which side would the usa be? also NZ seems to be doing just fine as it is.

Thank you so much for your replies! They will help a great deal in my research and thank you for taking so much time and consideration with your answers. I really appreciate it!

EDIT: Yes, Ron, I did mean the most recent conflict and I should have specified that. Hope you are feeling better

mil wrote: Thank you so much for your replies! They will help a great deal in my research and thank you for taking so much time and consideration with your answers. I really appreciate it!

EDIT: Yes, Ron, I did mean the most recent conflict and I should have specified that. Hope you are feeling better

much much better thanks.

wow..

Now I really didn't think the purpose of this post was for people who get their news from the major news outlets (and maybe the nation) to try and prove to everyone else how much they knew (or perhaps didn't).

ChrissMari wrote: wow..

Now I really didn't think the purpose of this post was for people who get their news from the major news outlets (and maybe the nation) to try and prove to everyone else how much they knew (or perhaps didn't).

perhaps that's the point.

The clever zit. I didn't even know they had their own brains.

ChrissMari wrote: wow..

Now I really didn't think the purpose of this post was for people who get their news from the major news outlets (and maybe the nation) to try and prove to everyone else how much they knew (or perhaps didn't).

who on this thread gets their news from major news outlets? care to elaborate?

and here's a little something you might want to take into consideration:

at least two people who supplied answers to this thread (ron and myself) have degrees in political science, and i've got a masters' in international relations with a focus on the middle east. generally, when people study for their degrees in any given subject, they don't rely on 'major news outlets' for their information. and, by the way, they didn't carry the nation in scotland as far as i could see (at least in the town in which i was doing my masters), and i doubt they have it in northern ireland, either (where steve lives). not that i've ever read it in my life, dear.

AgentWood wrote:

ChrissMari wrote: wow..

Now I really didn't think the purpose of this post was for people who get their news from the major news outlets (and maybe the nation) to try and prove to everyone else how much they knew (or perhaps didn't).

who on this thread gets their news from major news outlets? care to elaborate?

I get my news from this forum... :) so that shows how much I know!

Snorri xxx

Well, as a mere mortal, and not somebody who has a degree in the area, my opinion probably counts for fuck all - so take it with the pinch of salt and pat on the head it deserves. I’m not a renaissance man, or the kind of world beating intellectual usually found on NOOL, but Ill give it a go:

1. Who was the Iraq war between?: US and Them.

2. How would you describe each of these opposing groups (values, motives, etc): US/UK old and new imperialist axis, trying to pimp the turf of the Franco-German axis, and the Ruskie oligarchs. SADDAM – a very handsome arab dictator, who used to be a good dictator, but became a bad dictator – so we had to crush him. Assorted religious nutbags and morons – generally found in the US army or shouting “Victory to insurgency”.

3. Thinking back to the public debate immediatley before the war started, what was your understanding of the reasons for and against the war? For – WMD (False), Links to Al-Qaeda (False), reduce threat of terror (False), Against – “people, like, get killed” (irrelevant, it’s a war!), “bad for the environment” (ugh), “I prefer nice Franco German power” (idiocy, too simple), “No UN backing” (Irrelevant – just proves the brutality and honesty of Bush & co, unlike the Democats).

My reason: I oppose this war, because it is an adventure to shift a power structure that is abstracted from the everyday lives of westerners. Wherever the empire stamps its foot, Ill support he who fights back. Every coffin returned to the UK and USA is tragic, but deserved. End of.

4. Immediatley before the war started were you in support of the involvement of your country? (If applicable) No. A comrade went to jail to stop Ireland being used as a US aircraft carrier.

5. Have you changed your mind? Why or why not? No, because I’m always right, and I’ve been proven right again. Go me!

6. Do you think your people supported you government? My homies don’t support any army that don’t wear red – and even then we are critical. What did Irish people think? I don’t know, and don’t give a fuck. There is lots of idiotic Bush-beating around here, but that misses the point

7. Any additional comment? This war proves one thing: Nuclear weapons are the only guarantee of national sovereignty in the present global power structure. Time I dug back into those physics books and headed over to South America. The struggle continues.

Clockwork C wrote: SADDAM – a very handsome arab dictator

i dunno. i've always thought he was rather ugly, myself.

AgentWood wrote:

ChrissMari wrote: wow..

Now I really didn't think the purpose of this post was for people who get their news from the major news outlets (and maybe the nation) to try and prove to everyone else how much they knew (or perhaps didn't).

who on this thread gets their news from major news outlets? care to elaborate?

its the how much they don't know line, that i have problems with. If Chriss has a issue with what some of us posted, let her post her own response to these questions.

then again why can't this thread simply be to provide responses to Mil. We can discuss these issues somewhere else.

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

ChrissMari wrote: wow..

Now I really didn't think the purpose of this post was for people who get their news from the major news outlets (and maybe the nation) to try and prove to everyone else how much they knew (or perhaps didn't).

who on this thread gets their news from major news outlets? care to elaborate?

its the how much they don't know line, that i have problems with. If Chriss has a issue with what some of us posted, let her post her own response to these questions.

then again why can't this thread simply be to provide responses to Mil. We can discuss these issues somewhere else.

true. my problem is the assumption that people must get their news from major news outlets if they have different points of view from hers. it's absurd, to say the least.

AgentWood wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

ChrissMari wrote: wow..

Now I really didn't think the purpose of this post was for people who get their news from the major news outlets (and maybe the nation) to try and prove to everyone else how much they knew (or perhaps didn't).

who on this thread gets their news from major news outlets? care to elaborate?

its the how much they don't know line, that i have problems with. If Chriss has a issue with what some of us posted, let her post her own response to these questions.

then again why can't this thread simply be to provide responses to Mil. We can discuss these issues somewhere else.

true. my problem is the assumption that people must get their news from major news outlets if they have different points of view from hers. it's absurd, to say the least.

i do agree with you there. most of us noolers are brainy enough to make up our own minds.

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

ChrissMari wrote: wow..

Now I really didn't think the purpose of this post was for people who get their news from the major news outlets (and maybe the nation) to try and prove to everyone else how much they knew (or perhaps didn't).

who on this thread gets their news from major news outlets? care to elaborate?

its the how much they don't know line, that i have problems with. If Chriss has a issue with what some of us posted, let her post her own response to these questions.

then again why can't this thread simply be to provide responses to Mil. We can discuss these issues somewhere else.

true. my problem is the assumption that people must get their news from major news outlets if they have different points of view from hers. it's absurd, to say the least.

i do agree with you there. most of us noolers are brainy enough to make up our own minds.

No we're not. We are simply filled with information by our corrupt mass media, which is given directions from the US government. Surely this is obvious?

AgentWood wrote:

Clockwork C wrote: SADDAM – a very handsome arab dictator

i dunno. i've always thought he was rather ugly, myself.

In all seriousness, he was a handsome man. Dark features, well groomed, with a shotgun. Pow!

Thats not taking the chintzy palaces into account (beats the white house any day) - and the fact that he is a badass.

Uncle Liam wrote: No we're not. We are simply filled with information by our corrupt mass media, which is given directions from the US government. Surely this is obvious?

Well done Liam. Another combative technique surfaces. Fuck, I've read Chomsky - but this just blows it all out of the water - of course, it IS a big conspiracy! I should have known.

Jesus, maybe I should start reading your blog. Is it on BEBO?

the most wonderful thing about having one's eyes open is not the capacity for looking straight ahead, but the ability to see with peripheral vision.

AgentWood wrote: the most wonderful thing about having one's eyes open is not the capacity for looking straight ahead, but the ability to see with peripheral vision.

Ofcourse,I mean,look at the peeper swivel on Owls...Wise.

I am in Broad agreement with much that has been stated already..And it is fantastic that the majority are not having the wool pulled over their eyes with paranoia fuelled properganda bollocks,when what we are talking about is the invasion of another nation,in the cold light of day...

Boatraceface wrote:

AgentWood wrote: the most wonderful thing about having one's eyes open is not the capacity for looking straight ahead, but the ability to see with peripheral vision.

Ofcourse,I mean,look at the peeper swivel on Owls...Wise.

I am in Broad agreement with much that has been stated already..And it is fantastic that the majority are not having the wool pulled over their eyes with paranoia fuelled properganda bollocks,when what we are talking about is the invasion of another nation,in the cold light of day...

me thinks mil may not quite get the diversity of views she might have been expecting. i said it before. i believe to truly enjoy new order a certain level of smarts is required. most of us can see through the spin.

I'm really pleased so many people are giving there opinions on this - so I'd like to say thank you ands good night before it all gets too personal. Not to say you can't, but I deny all responsiblity for what is said hereafter, like the DVD menus say,

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS THREAD ARE PERSONAL OPINION ONLY. THEY IN NO WAY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF MIL OR HER AFFILIATES.

Thank you, people!