x

War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In

The war with Iraq continues to generate global controversy. On a smaller scale, that's reflected in the results of this month's Light Reading Research Poll.

A total of 251 respondents have weighed in so far, most prior to the outbreak of hostilities. And judging by their answers, it looks as if they are just as divided on the need for the war as the rest of the public.

A full 38 percent of respondents think war with Iraq is not justified; 31 percent said it was; another 31 percent said it was justified only if backed by UN approval.

Respondents seem generally unified, though, on the potential impact of war on the telecom recession. Most think it's a negative: 67 percent of respondents said the outbreak of war would deepen and prolong the recession. Of those, most thought this effect would be minimal: 40 percent said war would deepen the recession "a bit," while 27 percent thought it would do so "a lot."

Respondents were divided on whether war could hurt the OFC Conference next week in Atlanta. A full 58 percent said it won't have much impact, but 39 percent said if war broke out before the conference, plans would likely continue but "hardly anybody" would turn up.

NOTE: There's some evidence that the war has had some impact on OFC. See today's news analysis: OFC: The Show Must Go On.

Separately, readers continue to join several threads of discussion about the war and the telecom market generated by a story published earlier this month (see The Effect of War on Telecom). Check it out. But beware: Some threads have gone far afield of the original topic and reflect the conflicting feelings the war continues to fuel.

— Mary Jander, Senior Editor, Light Reading

For up-to-date information about the coming OFC Conference, please visit Light Reading’s Unauthorized OFC Preview Site.

COMMENTS Add Comment
<<   <   Page 2 / 11   >   >>
alcabash 12/5/2012 | 12:23:39 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In ArAmOp,

Thanks for your post, I have a question for you, who is representing the arabs or muslims in the administration ? Is there even like an arab or muslim under-secretary of some obscure administration ?
Obvioulsy jews are well-represented Wolfowitz, Fleischer, african americans Powell, Rice, latinos are being promoted ..but I have never seen an arab anywhere
illuminator 12/5/2012 | 12:23:37 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In Just caught this in this BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid...

"The doctrine of "shock and awe" is based on a book by military strategist Harlan Ullman, who is admired by both Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Mr Ullman wrote that the use of air power to achieve "nearly incomprehensible levels of mass destruction" could achieve "an overwhelming level of shock and awe against an adversary on an immediate basis to paralyse its will to resist".
"





Sorry but isn't the use of this air power a WMD? Or did I miss something that our WMDs are better than their WMDs?
illuminator 12/5/2012 | 12:23:37 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In Jensonee

What industry has Bush been involved in that is basically the only thing Iraq has going for it? Do you think some of his small circle of friends could still be involved in it?

Think that may answer your question!
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 12:23:36 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In It is becoming increasingly harder for us, Arab Americans, to simply say we are against war, and even if we stand up against all odds, and say so, we have to begin by a long speech about how cruel and inhumane Saddam is.

It seems you have a found a way to speak in front of a biased audience that may not otherwise listen. Good for you.
opticalwatcher 12/5/2012 | 12:23:35 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In Sorry for the duplications in the previous message. I got carried away with cut-and-paste.

opticalwatcher 12/5/2012 | 12:23:35 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In Perhaps an Arab American can explain something to me?

I will first admit to being not very knowledgeable in this area.

The United States went to war to protect the Muslims in Yugoslavia from being wiped out. Much of the diplomatic conflict with China and Russia (until recently) is because the US is trying to prevent these governments from being too harsh with the Muslims in these countries (the Chechen in Russia, I'm not sure what group in China). Until recently, at great expense, the US has been protecting a "no fly" zone in Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from killing Muslims in his own country.
I will first admit to being not very knowledgeable in this area.

The United States went to war to protect the Muslims in Yugoslavia from being wiped out. Much of the diplomatic conflict with China and Russia (until recently) is because the US is trying to prevent these governments from being too harsh with the Muslims in these countries (the Chechen in Russia, I'm not sure what group in China). Until recently, at great expense, the US has been protecting a "no fly" zone in Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from killing Muslims in his own country.

Now the US is fighting a war with the only secular Arab government in the area, lead by a basically non-practicing Muslim. He was responsible for killing large numbers of Iranians, and Kuwaiti, and was marching onto Saudi Arabia when a world coalition led by the US stopped him.

Now the US is fighting a war with the only secular Arab government in the area (oops, forgot Syria), lead by a basically non-practicing Muslim. The end result of the present conflict will be (hopefully) that a heavily oppressed people will be able to choose their own destiny even if it means a Muslim government.

Now why are all the Arabs and Muslims so angry with the US? Am I missing something?

gea 12/5/2012 | 12:23:35 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In "Sorry but isn't the use of this air power a WMD? Or did I miss something that our WMDs are better than their WMDs?"

Their WMDs are a cheap-n-easy way to level the playing field a little bit. Our weapons are "conventional" precisely because we've poured a trillion dollars into making them, and we can't have some upstart spoiling the purpose of our investment now, can we?
redface 12/5/2012 | 12:23:33 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In "Their WMDs are a cheap-n-easy way to level the playing field a little bit. Our weapons are "conventional" precisely because we've poured a trillion dollars into making them, and we can't have some upstart spoiling the purpose of our investment now, can we?"

Watching the US marching into Iraq like no man's zone, other countries such as Syria, Iran have to be thinking "we must arm ourselves with nuclear weapon ASAP". Because chemical and biological weapons are useless to stop a well equipped army like the US and the air superiority of the US is too great for any other country to take. Nuclear weapon is the only sure thing to stop the US from bullying them. So as a result of the Iraq war, there will probably be a great deal of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear weapon will be the true means of leveling the play field in the future. Our world will become a far more dangerous place because of the aggression of Bush.

It would be interesting to see what the US will do to North Korea who probably already has nuclear weapon. I bet they will not dare to invade North Korea the way they did to Iraq.
cyber_techy 12/5/2012 | 12:23:31 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In >I will first admit to being not very >knowledgeable in this area.

Yes!

>The United States went to war to protect the >Muslims in Yugoslavia from being wiped out.

In the beginning phase of the Yugoslavian war US Navy actually stopped Iranian ships that were going to Bosnia/Hercegovina to deliver arms to the Muslims there, knowingly very well that the unarmed Muslims were fightly against the armed to the teeth mainly Serbian Yugoslavian army. Had US not done that, you would not have seen the level of carnage as the Muslims were determined to fight back but didn't have the weapons that the Serbians had.

After Muslims were defeated and butchered, the US came with a peace plan, mainly as a hogwash to show to people like you.
BobbyMax 12/5/2012 | 12:23:31 AM
re: War With Iraq: Readers Weigh In I am very surprised with the speed various propoganda machine has set in motion. It comes from the government, news media and other surrogates. First of all it should be metioned that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. If they had the kind of weapons the US Government has claimed it has, Iraq would have nearly 200,000 troops stationed in Kuwait. Also, there has not been any resistance from Iraqis while the US troops were advancing freely. The propoganda for weapons was primarily done to line up votes in the security council. It is also a cheap way to misguide the American people. This did not work either. So an attack was launched against the wishes of the American people, 95% of the foreign governments.

My fear is that the none of the muslim countries except Quatar would buy any thing from the US. All needs of these countries in the area of technology and armaments can be satisfied by other nations and much cheaper cost.

This war will have unfavorable economic impact on the US. In addition, it also means forced isolation of the Us in the world affairs. It also means suspension fron the United Nations.

This hastily attack would impact for many decodes to come.
<<   <   Page 2 / 11   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE