Paper on Iraq.

I have to write a paper on Iraq, and my views on the war and invading Iraq. Obviously, I am not for it, at all. Though, I need facts, so I was thinking that I need negative affects that the war has caused. Loss of money, etc. Could anyone help me out here?

 

its gods will read my posts in (weres god) for a differant slant
PS IM JOKING about it being gods will and positive

 

um...........what?

 

Why not look for the facts yourself rather than asking others to give their opinions....before you know it people will only counter each 'negative' with a 'positive' anyway..

You know what you may get a diffrent perspective if you look for yourself...what makes you not like this war in iraq ?? why do you think its wrong ???

 

I have been looking. I cannot find a single thing.



Thanks.

 

try this (if you have not been their before)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/


I read it and it made me 'pro-war'

 

uh oh! Hopefully I don't get pursuaded, I'll read it though........
thanks

 

AND TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE MESSAGE
That id left some information on another thread

 

don't worry i was prety much that way inclined anyway..that site just confirmed it ...thats all. It has lots of facts that you can use .. your paper may turn into a book

 

its gods will read my posts in (weres god) for a differant slant

Its gods will . Read my posts 'were's god' , for a diffrent slant.

I am no good with grammer ...but that was confusing ..

 

That was very, very confusing.


Wow! That site is quite amazing, I read one paragraph and took off on my paper. I am right now writing about the fact that we may have gone into Iraq only for the sole purpose of domination, never with the intent on leaving. It's very, VERY interesting, and, yes I fear that my 500 word essay will turn into a book!

 

typing to fast for good gramer but there were brackets
sory for the rude reply before im a bit short fused with people in here
I THINK I SHOULD LEAVE
THEY HAVE BROUGHT ME DOWN TO THERE LEVEL

I APOLIGISE

 

JUST ONE THING ... i guese you can take it all as fact ... if you want ,and i am sure your aware of bias..but i looked at the other side and looked into some of the 'claims' personaly i came too diffrent conclusions...but anyway , i hope i helped a little

I found that information that is anti-war stops (at a certain point in the past ) and at the point were it fits and seems valid , if the information was updated and did not just cut off and not 'finish the story' then i would have been happier.

your in india right ??? blame the heat .

 

haha yeah, it's probably the heat! lol.



Actually, that's quite funny you mentioned about looking at both sides. Because, while I was writing, I said something on the lines of, "There are many arguments that could be made supporting the war" blah blah blah, so, then i made all their points and contradicted them, so, in a way I was looking at the other side too. Heh.

 

what are you like don't tell me you go on 'peaceful protests' as well.. that would be too much .

Don't think that i like the way i think...it troubles me sometimes..but thats just the way i am.

 

peaceful protest's...heh heh...wellllll.....

 

Why? Is what you believe in right now worth holding onto even if the facts prove that you are wrong?

 

I found this post interesting and very well constructed. The nuances are soooo cleverly subtle.
unbiased information (facts),
guaranteed an A

expecting some sort of political biased and will be surprised and impressed when you present a clear report.

Warning: Be very wary of any "sources" of information that people post on these forums

conspiracy theories

information your professor will not only laugh but probably fail you.**

It is constructed to give an impression that giving the Government view is unbiased and will bring success while an alternative interpretation called here ‘conspiracy theories’, can only mean possible failure and even being laughed at.

**

The ‘facts’ that are given by Inago are in essence true but they need to be seen in context.

Questions that should be asked –

Did the invasion of Iraq have anything to do with the US ‘War on Terror’ that was declared because of 9/11?

Was there any indication of a desire on the part of some in the Bush Admin to be involved in Iraq prior to 9/11?

What was the US’s foreign policy position on Saddam before his invasion of Kuwait?

What were the official reasons for going to war with Iraq?

Were there any doubts about the veracity of the WMD information?

**

Then we have to look at the whole idea of ‘unbiased information’ when talking about a political situation and the concept of these being ‘facts’. The problem with most information is that it is open to interpretation, spin and in some cases down right falsehood. But there is also another trick, misdirection.

Let us look again at just two points -

you cannot forget to include the 12 years leading up to the war and the 17 UN Security Council resolution that were passed in that time.

12 years – so this begs the question why suddenly they needed to invade at that time, had Saddam just become a clear and present threat? Or was it because certain politicians realised they could sell the Iraq invasion as part of the US response to 9/11? Was the agenda about terrorism or something else?

UN Resolutions – Many nations have and are disobeying UN resolutions (some supported in this by the US), and the US is not in Iraq with a UN mandate, it didn’t get one, it leads a ‘coalition of the willing’ not a UN sanctioned force.

So again how do these fit in with the questions-

Did the invasion of Iraq have anything to do with the US ‘War on Terror’ that was declared because of 9/11?

Was there any indication of a desire to invade Iraq prior to 9/11?

What was the US’s foreign policy position on Saddam before his invasion of Kuwait?

What were the official reasons for going to war with Iraq?

Were there any doubts about the veracity of the WMD information?

**

The US and UK governments have claimed that the ‘unbiased information’ that they presented as their case for war was ‘factual’. But there were many at the time that disputed the ‘evidence’ or were deeply sceptical. Some US newspapers have now acknowledged that they gave too much prominence to government ‘facts’ and led with those stores on page one while leaving the doubters on page 17. Even the ‘evidence’ that was presented was sensationalised by political spin (sexed up in British parlance) to make them seem far more dangerous and immanent threat than they were even if they had existed.

**

So understanding that in politics one person’s fact is another’s lie, and we come to the Inago’s warning about ‘sources’. All sources should not be taken at face value whatever they are, it is very hard for any group or outlook to stay completely objective. There are many ways in which something can be biased, politics, religious, nationalism, ethnicity, class, culture and many more can all have an influence in the way a person wishes to put forward an argument or viewpoint or ‘fact’. As a rule of thumb be wary of those people that claim to be putting forward the unbiased ‘fact’ while claiming that others views are little more than lies or conspiracy theories. I’m left wing and a member of the UK Green Party and I’m proud of the fact. Inago claims to be "smack in the middle" but believes that just because she doesn’t believe in "conspiracy theories" she is seen as a right winger, from the post I’ve read I would say she was right wing but make your own opinion, by reading them-

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?searchid=305726

**

However we come to the idea of the ‘conspiracy theory’ this is the modern version of the legend or fairytale. What is the classic CT based on, well partial and biased evidence, large amounts of supposition or wishful thinking, and the testament of those with other agendas? (Well if it is, that sounds very much like the US/UK reasons for the Iraqi war? -) )

The thing is that CT has become shorthand for humorously wacky or downright crazy, and so to say that someone’s views are CT is to dismiss those views out of hand without having to refute them at all, why would anyone need to refute the clearly wacky or crazy?

On the internet there are many wacky and crazy people and theories, but just because something has a link on the forum does not mean it is crazy, wacky or a conspiracy theory. But on this thread there have only being two links posted one to Information Clearing House which highlights the well publicised actives and views of the PNAC and the other to the US government cataloguing Saddam’s deception and defiance since he lost the US support after he invaded Kuwait.

Now since Inago posted the governments link can she now tell us why all the contributions to the other site are clearly ‘conspiracy theories’?

**

 

I told you

If you have written your paper on your computer then maybe you could post it here ???

I just think of those kidnappers that originaly wanted to make france stop making its school children not wear the hijab ... now all they want is cash .

For all our pontificating ... those MFs are not fighting any 'honourable' cause ...