Mock 2: What do you think about the Iraq situation?

[Guest MayFlower1]

Interviewer: "So, what do you think about the situation in Iraq?"

 

 

 

 

Edited the subject heading to standardize them. -Ian

[Guest Koggetsu]

good question, but I wodner how much of your own opinion should u really put into answering a question like this? Because I think most people would only know the basics of an issue like this.

[Guest MayFlower1]

Koggetsu,

 

I think you have to answer honestly in an interview situation. From my perspective...and it is nothing more than one opinion...If I know little or nothing about a question asked by my interviewers I would feel quite comfortable and/or justified saying something like "I really don't know very much about this particular subject. I feel I would need more information in order to feel like I have made an educated judgement about the situation."

 

Peter

[Guest DHP62]

I agree with MayFlower when discussing many other issues. But I think the current situation with Iraq is so important that any global citizen should be informed, and if they're not, they should try to become so. Not even for a med school interview, but just for your own self.

 

I agree that sometimes its best to admit you just don't know enough, but for such a pressing and central issue like Iraq, I think you really should know something...

 

Thats how I feel right now...but I'm definitely willing to change that view...so what do others think?!

[Guest therealcrackers]

DHP---if you change your view in the middle of the interview in response to such a question, the interviewers may reflect on that less favourably. A good CYA tactic is, if I had more information, my opinion might change...

 

On global issues, ignorance is no excuse; indecisiveness is commonplace (I don't know from day-to-day who's the biggest threat to peace, GWB or SH).

 

The "stunning proof" did not cause Adlai Stevenson to wobble in his grave... this was no Cuban missile crisis revelation today... but we'll see what tomorrow brings...

[Guest MayFlower1]

DHP62,

 

I absolutely agree with you on this issue. I think what I was trying to say was that if you truly didn't know anything about even such an important and central current issue...you shouldn't bs about it...you should just say you don't know.

 

I personally am disappointed by many things that have happened over the last year. I am, and this is an understatement, horrified and disgusted about the events of Sept. 11 and any terrorist activity...however, that being said, I also strongly disagree with war. What Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and the Al Quaeda network has done is beyond imagination...beyond anything sane...but does that justify us or the US engaging in war? War didn't make Saddam Hussein go away...the problems in Iraq...or the problems anywhere for that matter. I understand why some people might see war as a solution...but I personally don't. Taking a human life, whether it be in the name of "justice", "to protect our country", "revenge" or whatever else is just plain not in alignment with what I believe is the right thing to do as a good, civilized, human being. I fully realize there are many sick people in this world who commit haneous crimes...and they should absolutely be brought to justice and punished for those crimes...but if we as a society believe those crimes are wrong I believe we need to stand up for a higher, more humane form of justice. Can going to war with Afghanistan and the Al Quaeda network get back the people who were killed? I would prefer Canada and the U.S...or at least Canada...to lead by setting an example of how things should be done.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Peter

[Guest peachy]

I'm curious - for those that have been through the interviewing process already, do questions like this really get asked?

 

I'd be shocked to get such a loaded question as "What do you think of the situation in Iraq"...

[Guest MayFlower1]

peachy,

 

They absolutely do get asked...I was asked a few doozies during my interview last year...and I have heard stories from other successful and unsuccessful candidates about even more difficult, loaded and controversial questions...

 

Peter

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

I got asked about the situation in the Middle East at my Ottawa interview last year, so at least a rudimentary knowledge of current world events is highly advisable. Just be able to appreciate the situation and the issues surrounding it and you should be fine wrt a question like this.

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi there peachy,

 

I fielded a few questions similar to the above last year when interviewed. Realistically, they could ask you almost anything so the interviewing process is as equally a matter of being comfy in your own skin while chatting with a stranger as it is having the "correct" answer. However, this is still fun and good practice.

 

On the original question: I've been ruminating over the USA/Iraq situation for a wee bit and I was thinking that it might be high time to take a completely different tack in resolving the situation. Gandhi had great success with some marvellous and unique approaches to resolving conflict. I often wonder how some of those approaches would stand up to this scenario. Menacing/aggravating each other with threatening arsenals of weapons and potential falsehoods, the USA and Iraq seem to be taking a pretty ineffective route towards peace, and dragging a lot of innocents along in the process. Will launching missiles at one another help to alleviate tensions in the long run--I think not.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest sally2001]

hey all,

great question... would one be looking to respond with the "right" answer or a well-thought out one? if asked this, i'd have a lot of opinions, but i'm not sure a med interview would be the right place to vent (correct me if i'm wrong).

i agree with peter in that i think the us is taking an offensive role in this dispute, and war if every justified, should be the last resort (sounds like an MCAT WS prompt). the real motive is setting up their pipelines across the region. (not my words, just watch cnn and they will explain it in detail - esp lou dobb's moneyline).

i fully support canada's stance, france, germany, china, and russia in letting the u.n. do it's part and give them (the inspectors) the time that they need.

plunging into an offensive at this time (election year for the states) simply does not justify the millions of estimated civilian casualties, the risk of our troops, and the economic cost to economies that are already hurting.

but that's just my two cents; i haven't a clue how such a response would go over in an interview.

take care all

[Guest kosmo14]

I too was asked a question similar to that in my interview, and they even went furthur and asked if I was on a peace mission how would I bring the two sides together, and how would I attempt to resolve it? My question pertained to the situation between Isreal and Palastine.

[Guest DHP62]

I totally agree Kirsteen. There are other alternatives to war. There is a very strong global nonviolence movement that must have some suggestions, although I am personally not familiar with them.

 

On another note, here's some interesting things I've seen/heard on campus:

- a poster saying something like "Weapons of mass destruction: VX, Nuclear Arms, Veto Power"

- a guest lecture discussing what would be found if UN weapons inspectors searched the US

 

Don't know why I included those since they don't really pertain to the question...just thought they were interesting!

[Guest sally2001]

north korea has publicly announced they are reactivating their facilities and reserving the right to first use of nuclear weapons if they feel threatened. but then again, they don't have oil.

food for thought.

[Guest peachy]

Wow. Thanks for the responses, everyone, I learned something today ...

 

... and I am SO not looking forward to my interviews in just over three weeks time!

[Guest me maniac]

peachy,

 

just watch CNN for the next three weeks... you'd be surprised at what you pick up (mostly because they repeat themselves over and over and over again!).

 

Another thing, (and this is my personal opinion only - humble as it may be!) is that GW Bush Junior has to fill some pretty big boots left behind by Daddy. This trigger hungry Texan wants to go down in history in a BIG way... what better way than to claim he rid the world of "evil" in the form of SH and Al Quaeda? (not that he ever found Osama bin Buddy (like looking for a needle in a haystack), even after he bombed the sh** out of Afghanistan and put millions of people out of their homes). What he may find instead, though, is a situation much like what happened in Vietnam..... the US can't possibly win against "terrorist" groups because they fight completely different wars (the US war is a technological one, the Middle East war is a ground war - especially in light of the fact that Iraq has already declared they don't have long-range missles (but do I believe them?!)). Like Vietnam, the US can't compete with their troops in their territory (something simple like a sand storm would set the US back, but hardly phase the Iraqis becuase they are used to fighting in sand storms). Also like Vietnam, the US would quickly loose popularity with other nations (except maybe Bed Buddy Blair) as well as their own citizens. They have already been having peace demonstrations there.... is this starting to sound like history repeating itself?

 

BTW, I personally think the oil thing is a bit of a red-herring..... it's all about global domination, but hey, what the hell do I know? I've never wanted to be the only superpower in the world.

 

 

Just my $0.25

 

me

[Guest peachy]

Never? Oh come on, admit it. Everybody's wanted to be the world's only superpower at one time or another.... :rollin

 

anyways, thanks for the tips

[Guest sally2001]

kosmo,

that's another great question, certainly something one would need a few moments to think about. putting onself in the others position would be a start. ultimately, i think a really solid proposal for a "2-state solution" is what is necessary in this case.

 

peachy,

for your own general info for the interviews and beyond, it's a great idea to spend 10 mins/day checking out the headlines. i find cnn very pro-u.s. sometimes so much so that you'd think the other side doesn't exist or is completely insane in any given conflict. canada's media (esp CBC and globeandmail.com) is in generally good but not as thorough to the extent of the bbc (my personal favourite). their website is great - news.bbc.co.uk and i'm sure if you surf that site on occasion you'll be able to breathe easier during your interview. good luck.

[Guest Koggetsu]

Actaully i'm quite surprised that so many of you seem not to favour the US here!!! I too am totally disgusted by the way the US has acted since sept.11.

 

Personally I think that the US is basically looking for oil and domination, and that rather than going on every other country that doesn't agree with their values adn policies, it should spend much more time reflecting on what is it about their policies adn values that would cause other people to disagree and for groups like Al Qaeda to do somethng about it rather than calling everyone else that they "hate us" because they are "evil"

 

 

but see, if I say something like that in the interview, I feel that I would be blasted by the interviewers?

[Guest Biochem10]

yeah, it seems like the younger generation (ie. those in university) are against a war in Iraq and the sentiment in Canada these days seems pretty Anti-US domination. I had a very heated debate with my uncle who's in his 60's, who is very pro-America right now, the conversation wasn't very pretty. Anyway, I would personally try to steer clear of this issue in the interview, if asked my opinion I would give it, but I would definetly not go into any details, just simply say that I don't agree with war in any circumstances.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

The problem is not the US. It's Bush.

 

500 votes (or whatever the final difference was) the other way and it would be interesting to see how the last 18 months would have played themselves out. . .

[Guest Koggetsu]

To UWOMED2005: well yes i agree that Bush is a large to blame, but either way, if I say Bush or USA, I think that they might blast me for saying something like that?

 

To BIOCHEM: Actually i think if u say something like "I oppose war under any circumstance" I bet that they will grill you for a long time on that part alone. And I think u might get into a worse situation than before?

[Guest Biochem10]

You're probably right about getting myself in trouble if I say I oppose war in any circumstance. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a pacifist and I think that there are non-violent ways to deal with situations such as these.

[Guest Ceds]

I think for interview purposes (and in general for any interaction with others) it is better to try to be constructive. So as an example, if you do disagree with what the US is doing then you should say so but in a way that is civilized and constructive. The reason I feel this way is that as a professional (an MD) one will often be faced with a situation where he/she does not agree with what is happening but to simply criticize or blast the person/event does not help. Instead it is better to try to come up with a solution or compromise to make the best out of a situation which may be disagreeable at best. Just my opinion though.

[Guest devomcd]

The fascist leftism of the forum saddens me...