Is it peace or just silence under the shadow of violence?

Most Vietnamese people still feel the consequences of America’s war against Vietnam. E. Pesiwarissa (Indonesian): I don’t like war, but if Iraq doesn’t comply with UN resolutions, it’s the best from the worst situations. Turaj Nuralishani (Iran): Saddam’s a dirty dictator who should be punished for his crimes, but I’m against the attack because lots of innocents will die. Damian Danchenko (USA) I’m moderately against it, not fully, because in the long-run it’ll be better for Iraq and the rest of the world. Aleksandar Andreski (Macedonia) I’m against war of any kind. They say you fight fire with fire, but one must be very careful not to become the arsonist.

Is it a ‘war’ or an ‘attack’?

Fabio Palacio (Colombia): It’s an attack, because there’s no provocation. Fredrick Aboka (Kenya): It’s both; neither is warranted. Yan Wang (China): An attack, the two sides aren’t in balance. It’s like a couple of strong men attacking a sick child. Katherine Crichton (British): A war. The possible war is about social responsibility. We all live on this world together, so how can it be fair that some countries agree to be reasonable in terms of weapons (international arms treatise) and others break these agreements.

Is it about Iraq’s alleged nuclear/chemical weapons or other reasons?

Bukhari: It’s the oil game. America wants Iraq’s oil reserves. They don’t care about the Iraqi people. Austine Ajah (Nigeria): US/Nato have no ulterior motive; it’s about total world disarmament. Didong Prabowo (Indonesia): US/Nato have other objectives; they want to rule the world. Nuralishani: The US wants to totally control the world%s energy supplies and make the region safe for Israel. Iraq used chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran War, but who remembers any reaction by the West then? Crichton: The weapons. Perhaps if 9/11 had not happened we’d be in a different situation now. But it did happen. It almost comes down to the saying, ‘you can’t be too careful’.

How would this war contribute to world peace?

Bukhari: It’ll grow more extremism, more deadly wars in future. Muslims see the double standard the US imposes on the Middle East. Ajah: Short-term, negatively; but long-term, if Iraq is disarmed, peace will reign thereafter. Gea Parikesit (Indonesia): This possible war would contribute to world peace by not happening at all! Hieu: The US will now have the right to attack any country, and this is wrong! Is it peace or just silence under the shadow of violence? Wawan Dhewanto (Indonesia): After Iraq, Bush will attack another country. Andreski: There’ll be one state less that has weapons of mass destruction, and one more without sovereignty.

How will the war end, and how will it affect global politics and economies?

Nuralishani: Iraq’s economy and society will be demolished. The US will control the world’ssecond biggest oil reserve and it’ll break US dependency on Saudi oil, allowing the US to start thinking about the next step in the Middle East! Danchenko: It’ll end with a strong US/western influence in Iraq and the Gulf region. Andreski: Iraq will be economically destroyed, split into 2 or 3 separate states, then rebuilt with US money and controlled by the US. Iraqis will become cheap labor for the US economy.

Showdown in Iraq!, as CNN might say. We asked some TU Delft foreign students for their thoughts on the possible US/UK invasion of Iraq.

For or against the US/UK led invasion of Iraq?

Khurram Bukhari (Pakistan): Shame to all those who want to impose war on the poor, helpless people of Iraq! Dang Hieu (Vietnam) : Against. Most Vietnamese people still feel the consequences of America’s war against Vietnam. E. Pesiwarissa (Indonesian): I don’t like war, but if Iraq doesn’t comply with UN resolutions, it’s the best from the worst situations. Turaj Nuralishani (Iran): Saddam’s a dirty dictator who should be punished for his crimes, but I’m against the attack because lots of innocents will die. Damian Danchenko (USA) I’m moderately against it, not fully, because in the long-run it’ll be better for Iraq and the rest of the world. Aleksandar Andreski (Macedonia) I’m against war of any kind. They say you fight fire with fire, but one must be very careful not to become the arsonist.

Is it a ‘war’ or an ‘attack’?

Fabio Palacio (Colombia): It’s an attack, because there’s no provocation. Fredrick Aboka (Kenya): It’s both; neither is warranted. Yan Wang (China): An attack, the two sides aren’t in balance. It’s like a couple of strong men attacking a sick child. Katherine Crichton (British): A war. The possible war is about social responsibility. We all live on this world together, so how can it be fair that some countries agree to be reasonable in terms of weapons (international arms treatise) and others break these agreements.

Is it about Iraq’s alleged nuclear/chemical weapons or other reasons?

Bukhari: It’s the oil game. America wants Iraq’s oil reserves. They don’t care about the Iraqi people. Austine Ajah (Nigeria): US/Nato have no ulterior motive; it’s about total world disarmament. Didong Prabowo (Indonesia): US/Nato have other objectives; they want to rule the world. Nuralishani: The US wants to totally control the world%s energy supplies and make the region safe for Israel. Iraq used chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran War, but who remembers any reaction by the West then? Crichton: The weapons. Perhaps if 9/11 had not happened we’d be in a different situation now. But it did happen. It almost comes down to the saying, ‘you can’t be too careful’.

How would this war contribute to world peace?

Bukhari: It’ll grow more extremism, more deadly wars in future. Muslims see the double standard the US imposes on the Middle East. Ajah: Short-term, negatively; but long-term, if Iraq is disarmed, peace will reign thereafter. Gea Parikesit (Indonesia): This possible war would contribute to world peace by not happening at all! Hieu: The US will now have the right to attack any country, and this is wrong! Is it peace or just silence under the shadow of violence? Wawan Dhewanto (Indonesia): After Iraq, Bush will attack another country. Andreski: There’ll be one state less that has weapons of mass destruction, and one more without sovereignty.

How will the war end, and how will it affect global politics and economies?

Nuralishani: Iraq’s economy and society will be demolished. The US will control the world’ssecond biggest oil reserve and it’ll break US dependency on Saudi oil, allowing the US to start thinking about the next step in the Middle East! Danchenko: It’ll end with a strong US/western influence in Iraq and the Gulf region. Andreski: Iraq will be economically destroyed, split into 2 or 3 separate states, then rebuilt with US money and controlled by the US. Iraqis will become cheap labor for the US economy.