Read this article, then watch this clip from the speech mentioned [it should be Archive: Colin Powell's UN Presentation on Iraq WMD pt 8, and you should watch it from time signature 3:57]. Feel free to watch the entire speech, or skim through it, or read the transcript alongside the clip. Then, find one article (you can find more!) expressing an opinion about the run-up to the Iraq War of 2003 and read it – consider its arguments. Try going to any newspaper’s archive of the Op/Ed pages from January-March 2003.
YOUR TASK (part 1): take yourself back 9 years and imagine you were hearing this speech only a year and a half after 9/11. Would you be convinced by it? For the duration of your assignment, try to forget what you’ve learned about Iraq in the last 9 years. Write a paragraph expressing whether you would favor going to war in Iraq at that time, given the information you’ve just gotten.
Email or post that paragraph and the link(s) to the article(s) you read.
DO NOT FORGET to email me both your powerpoint presentation and your sources WITH bias analyses.
I personally would favor going to war at that time because Iraq is proved to be a dangerous and threatning country. Collin says, Iraq does not agree with the fact that they should disarm their weapons which makes me think that the US can possibly be harmed again. 9/11 was the second attack by Iraq so fighting back would be the only choice to protect the US. The US is trying to create peace among Iraq but Iraq won't make commends. The US knew about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction and their involvement in terrorism" which makes US a huge target for Iraq. The US cannot put blame on the Iraqis because of the fact that they are always on the move; nowhere to be found. Saddam Hussein is also hiding; not only his soldiers, but also kidnnaped Americans. I believe that Iraq is just waiting for revenge againts the US so that war can be declared. Therefore I believe that the US should favor war againts Iraq.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/iraq%2Binquiry%2Bin%2Bsearch%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bprowar%2Bvoices/3463747.html
Personally, I think that I would not be convinced by this speech. Before going in depth with the history and the details on 9/11, I would not have agreed with going to war with Iraq. I don’t think war and violence is the best possible and only choice we have against Iraq. There has to be another alternative before jumping right into war. Even though it seems that there are no other options, war may not actually be the answer. If we tried to possibly talk about conditions with Saddam then maybe there could not be violence involved.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/just-war-or-a-just-war.html
I would probably be on the side of going to war with Iraq. Colin Powell made it clear that they had weapons being researched and constructed. There were satellite photos and a brief recording of them revealing they had "nerve agents" and the "forbidden ammo" was already "...evacuated". From the 9/11 attack, we know that they're capable of attacking the U.S. Not knowing everything's that happened in the last 9 years, I would have agreed to go to war with Iraq and liberate them.
ReplyDeletehttp://teresi.us/html/writing/iraq_war.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would personally disagree to going to war with Iraq for a few reasons. First, in the video it sounded as if Powell was assuming most of the things he was saying. It didn't sound like any hardcore evidence against Sadam. Second, in my article many different opinions were told on of them being that we did not take enough time to see if they had any weapons of mass distruction. Also, it mentions that many people think that Bush would have still gone to war with or without enough evidence. I think that in some way, Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and that we didn't have enough evidence to start a war.
ReplyDeletehttp://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/99.php?lb=btis&pnt=99&nid=&id=
I Dont think I'd be convinced to agree with going to war with Iraq after hearing this speech. There was no real evidence that they had any weapons of mass destruction or that they were going to use it against anyone. After reading this article It said that before war they carried out 700 inspections at 500 different sites and still no findings of any dangerous or nuclear weapons. To me the speach was comprised of a bunch of assumptions, (President Bush believed in "good faith" that Iraq was a serious threat).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239
Personally, I would have chosen to go to war. I feel like our country was already under a huge threat after 9/11. If we have any speculations that something bad can occur than we should take risk. I feel like there is enough information brought to the table with the tapes of recorded conversations that mention "Al-Kindi". That company has a lot to do with prohibited weapons systems activity. And if Iraq finds out were listening we could be a possible target. Id go to war and protect the US from what we know instead of getting hurt by what we didnt know.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46834.html
After listening to Colin Powell’s speech about Sudam’s possible tactics, I believe that we should go to war against Iraq. And I am convinced with the possibilities of what might happen if we don’t. Because they were saying how cruel he is to his own citizens, and because of that nothing would really prevent him from not doing what ever he wants. Also that he won’t stop for anything unless someone actually stops him. This means that Sudam’s, weapons of mass destruction, will still be produced and stock piled till he has the opportunity to strike against anyone who is not on guard crippling them. We must stop him in order to preserve the peace we have right now.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.historyking.com/mobile/World-War/iraq-war/Pros-Cons-To-Going-To-War-With-Iraq.html