Symbolic interactionism suggests that human interaction and society are defined through the use of symbols and their interpreted meanings. People act based on the meanings and expectations derived from others' actions and symbols used during communication. This theory views humans as active thinkers who interpret their own actions and environment based on self-reflection, rather than reacting passively to external forces. The document then discusses the debate around the legality of the Iraq war, arguing that military action was justified based on Iraq's violations of UN Security Council resolutions to dismantle weapons of mass destruction programs and cease human rights abuses.

1. Sociological Perspectives
Sociology is a widespread area described by a number of concepts that
attempt to study as well as offer meaning to the social facet of human
life. Amongst the leading concepts both in and outside the sociology
field is symbolic interaction. The model in a general idea is described by
the verity that it depends on the meanings displayed by the signs
embraced by people as they mingle together. In the
book Contemporary Sociological Thought: Themes and Theories, Blumer
reviews the society as symbolic interaction. Like it is inferred by the
face value sense, the term symbolic interaction alludes to the
distinctive utilization of signs by people in their daily communications.
The ensuing view of the actions embraced by humans whenever they
are communicating with each other is what makes these means of
communication, serving as symbols. It is this insight of the expected
meaning of the interaction signs while communicating that impacts the
feedback or reply of a person (91).
Evidently, from the above typical feedbacks that we normally get from
individuals while intermingling are not usually due to our deeds,
however because of their viewpoints or meanings that they get from
our deeds. Generally, the entire procedure of human communication is
promising via the use of signs that are deduced and the understanding
of each person’s undertakings. Away from the interactions of human
beings, the act of people providing meaning to the undertakings of
others whenever intermingling can aid in offering perception into the
comprehension of man, his deeds as well as connections (Blumer, 92).
Symbolic interaction suggests that man has a self, with who he can
relate in the same way he intermingles with other individuals. This
clarifies that a man is able to make himself the subject of his deeds, for
instance, being satisfied with himself or being angry with himself. As
stated by Blumer, it is this tool that make it easy for man to make a

2. subject from himself which is interpreted to the manner he copes with
the world. This infers that he depends on the mechanism of making
subjects out of his vicinity prior to dealing with it.
It is only via making suggestion to himself of his vicinity that the human
undertaking, established on what he ascertains from his environments.
This would indicate that what a man is sensible of is a thing which he is
showing to himself. The contradictory is factual, whereby anything that
a man is not aware of then he is not showing it to himself (Blumer 93).
The cradle of this theory is that man is always mindful, he utilizes self-
indication to assess the world around him, and for this reason self-
indication aids him to translate deeds of others in his vicinity.
The significance of this theory of self-indication, as suggested in
symbolic interaction, is twofold. Firstly, self-indication offers man the
capability to make a subject out of the deeds of other people. This
criticizes the idea that man lives in a setting that is having forgoing
subject which impact his deeds, but in one way he established his
subjects by self-indication, relying on his enduring undertakings.
Secondly, there is the verity that the deeds of people are not just
simple incidents, however somewhat they are accurately built. In
synopsis, the conduct of people are not accredited to their
environments, rather it is from the manner a person will analyze his
vicinity.
The war in Iraq has been one of the unpredictable issues of the past
years, with diverse opinions emerging from diverse corners of the
globe. Legality of this conflict is one of the most intense debates.
Where United States feels that they were right to attack Iraq, some of
her associates in the United Nations perceived this as wrong. This battle
as well developed mayhems in the educational field in the world, with
academics having diverse stands on the rightfulness of the Iraq war.
Evaluating the occasion which caused war in Iraq, I feel that the battle
was a vindicated one and those asserting otherwise are simply doing it
because they have to do it. The mutual notion is that the USA is a

3. global intimidator, and does not respect the requirements of global
law. I will try to prove how the battle was a vindicated one.
In September 2002, President George W. Bush petitioned the United
Nations Security Council, asserting that embracing war against Iraq was
for two motives. Firstly, in order to enforce the present Security Council
resolutions. Secondly and most imperative was in order to get rid of the
danger that Iraq was posing to worldwide safety and peace. The United
Nations Security council responded by adjusting to Resolution 1441,
which asserted that Iraq was in material infringement of earlier Security
Council, therefore cautioned that awful impacts would emerge out of
persisting to that (Yoo, 564).
Iraq overlooked this call and this led to the creation of an ad hoc
‘coalition of the willing’ led by United States was as result attacked on
March 19, 2003 and by May 1 2003, the Iraq military was overpowered
and president Bush announced in overtly the culmination of the major
war in Iraq (Yoo, 564). After the defeat of Saddam Hussein, the U.S
remained in Iraq as a vacating state that administers the transformation
of Iraq as embedded in Resolution 1483 of the Security Council. These
events that took place before and in the course of the war were lawful
and the assertions by the agents of nations that include France, Russia
as well as Germany that the war was not vindicated by the international
law I contemplate is belittling the United Nations Security Council.
I will concisely look at the occurrence that took place first in the Iraq
war, in order to portray that the U.S had right to attach Iraq if the
Security Council has vindicated the invasion. This is due to the fact that
it would be termed as a deed of self-protection and an approval by the
U.N is not necessary. On August 2, 1990 Iraq attacked Kuwait and the
Security Council reacted by adopting the Resolution 660 which required
the departure of Iraq from Kuwait. These appeal went on unheard by
Iraq and thus the Security Council adopted Resolution 678, this gave
the government power to utilize any essential plan in order to maintain

4. as well as enact Resolution 660 and the following applicable resolutions
in the search for international peace and security in the area (Yoo, 565).
Being unable to pull out as requested, Operation Desert Storm
commenced in Iraq and it was detached from Kuwait by February 1991.
Resolution 687 was later implemented to generate a cease-fire, with
Iraq anticipated to put up with certain issues in order to maintain the
condition of cease-fire. Iraq settled to play by the regulations stipulated
by the Security Council, however as time moved, this discouraged the
attempts of the security council of making sure they stick to the set
circumstances for a cease-fire. Up until 2003, when resolution 1441 was
enacted by the Security Council, Iraq had no effort at pledging to the
orders set by Resolution 687 (Yoo, 565).
Resolution 1441 as a result found Iraq to have infringed the earlier
resolutions by its on-going creation of weapons of mass destruction, its
control of the civilian populace as well as its backing of terrorism. These
undertakings of Iraq were a danger to international peace as well as
security and as Iraq had not reacted to non-military requests, it was
essential to make use of military action to push Iraq to meet the terms.
The debate led by Russia, France as well as Germany that time had
lessened the earlier Resolution 618 nonfunctional was not effective,
provided the verity that laws are solitary cancelled in case they are
withdrawn. It would be absurd for the government to agree to that
debate, for revolution would rule the world if laws would be judged as
outdated after a certain duration. With those few remarks, I
undoubtedly think that the guaranteed army action will extensively aid
in fight against terrorism (Yoo, 568).

5. Works Cited
Blumer, Herbert. “Society as symbolic Interaction.” Contemporary
Sociological Thought:
Themes and Theories. Ed. Sean P. Hier. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’
Press Inc., 2005. 91-100.
Yoo, John. “International Law and the War in Iraq.” American Journal of
International Law
97. 563(2003): 563-575.
- See more at: http://www.premiumessays.net/articles/sociological-
perspectives/#sthash.fpvlQoFf.dpuf