Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[Roseray]

Hi everybody,

I was in a dilemma whether agreeing to hold a war with Iraq? Of course, I do know a war will cause tens of thousands of civilians lives. However, continueing holding back of what Saddam tyrant rule will only make life difficult for Iraqi.

What do you think?

[obelix]

The Americans are not going to kill "tens of thousands" of Iraqi civilians.
They do no bomb indescriminately and will be trying to avoid any civilian casualties.

[wing]

Masses of innocent caualities are unavoidable, but don't you think it is worth it when the war is expected to liberate the country from the tyrant?

[dduck]

People talk about getting rid of Saddam because he's killed his own people with these weapons of mass destruction. But it's also true that behind this nasty man was a US government intent of supplying WMD to him so that he could do the US's dirty work for them by killing Iranians.

Part of the problem is of the US's making, they should also bear some of the responsibility for the current mess that we're now in.

Not many people seem to be thinking about the sanctions either. We talk about bombing innocents and how horrible that would be. But these innocents are also being punished by the UN by having medication and food withheld. The UN has tried smart sanctions with other countries, because no one believes that blanket style sanction have any real influence with heartless dictators. So why are there still blanket sanctions being imposed on Iraq?

And what happens after the war? I hear reports that the Iranians are massing on the border. When the US invades, what are they going to do if the Iranians jump in and support the war? Surely, the can't say get lost this is our war! What will they do when the Iranians refuse to co-operate - they won't want a war on two fronts. And what will they do when the Iranians sieze parts of southern Iraq and refuse to leave? Remember that the Iranians and southern Iraqis are both Shi'ites, so it makes sense for them to join forces. What else could spin out of control once the war starts?

Don't think of this war in terms of days and weeks. The repercussions of our actions now will last for generations.

Iain
_________________

Teachers open the door, but you must enter by yourself.
--Chinese Proverb

[pugachevV]

The US may have supplied Saddam with weapons in the past. So have Russia, France, Germany and many other countries. To single out the US merely demonstrates your anti-americanism.
If America invades Iraq, it WILL be doing something to correct its alleged past mistakes.

[wing]

[Diana]

[dduck]

[Diana]

And why should the United States be the one to carry the heaviest burden of responsibility, Dduck? Russia, France, and other countries were all involved and therefore should be EQUALLY responsible.

America should be the one to set an example for all of you????? What's wrong? Doesn't the rest of the world know how to think for themselves? Every country who is involved in providing Saddam the means of creating those mass destructive weapons should be held equally responsible. The U.S. may be a superpower; but other countries are not babies. These countries are also capable of making their own decisions.

Today, there are many countries who are not standing beside the U.S. as they try to push for war with Iraq. Many of these countries such as France prefer to give more time to the UN inspectors to do their job. So as you can clearly see, this shows that all countries are capable of making their own decisions and choices. So, why is it that when America decides to do what other countries are doing, you place a heavy burden of responsibility ONLY on America, Dduck? France and Russia have even been trading more with Iraq far longer than the US. But you think America should take the burden of responsibility more than the others? I don't think you're being very fair, Dduck.

[dduck]

Just to clarify: what we're discussing now is how to apportion blame. You think I'm placing too much blame on the US. We don't agree here ... at the moment ... but what we're not discussing is what to do about it.

I personally, think the way Clinton handled foreign policy was very constructive. He was criticised for co-operating with the Chinese, and I felt some sympathy for that point of view. However, after some reflection I thought it was wiser to build trade relations with the Chinese, which would give the West some influence with their government officers. A win-win situation.

What that idiot Bush did was to alienate North Koreans by branding them as evil. What school of charm did he go to? Now the US is afraid that North Korea has the capability of bombing California with a nuclear missile, so they're being forced to repair diplomatic links with them! Sounds like a foreign policy spinning out of control to me. A lose-lose situation.

Iain
_________________

Teachers open the door, but you must enter by yourself.
--Chinese Proverb

[obelix]

Someone recently published on the old forum a list of all the weapons supplied to Iraq. The vast majority came from Russia, France, Britain, Germany.
The USA supplied them with 60 civilian helicopters. Yes, of course a helicopter can be used for war, so can a Toyota pickup truck (see, Somalia)
I doubt if the USA supplied Iraq with any weapons of mass destruction. If you are talking about biological and chemical agents; they came from Germany and France. That is why they are so reluctant to send their troops in. They will be found out and their guys will die. So now we have the situation where only the USA, Australia and Britain have the balls to sort this son of a *beep* out, while the real villains are prancing about on the world stage trying to take the moral high ground. (As if they even know where that is!)
Who really cares about who is to blame? Will that help solve the problem?
Saddam is what he is and he needs to be dealt with.

[Diana]

Hmmm.......it's seems to me that you've suddenly changed subject, Iain. You were blaming ONLY the United States for providing weapons of mass destruction to Saddam. Now suddenly, former President Clinton pops up! Really, Iain!

What are we going to do about it? Well, for now, it seems that the U.S. is getting ready to propose a new resolution. Let us hope that we don't go to war and that a more peaceful solution is found. The recent news I've read is that Mr. Blix has informed the UN that they will start destroying the missles by March 1st. Haven't you noticed that after 12 long years, the only time Saddam ever allowed UN inspections to take place was NOW under threat of force??? I hope he comes clean and start complying fully with the UN to avoid war. Let us hope that the US can SCARE the living hell out of Saddam into disarming and complying with all UN resolutions. All I can say is - let's hope that this scare tactic the US is playing works otherwise the US will have to play their next card and go to war. Look at that! Iraq already said that he will destroy the missiles by March 1st. There's been some improvement in Iraq's part according to the United Nation. Gee! I wonder why?

[dduck]

[Diana]

As I said before, Dduck, America was not the only one who provided the means for Saddam to make those weapons of mass destruction. There were also other countries involved. Russia, France, and even your own country Great Britain were equally responsible. For you to only point fingers at America is very hypocritical of you and shows your anti-Americanism.

I am both a Chamorro and an American. As an American, I don't excuse the actions of my country when they do things that are wrong. America should accept their responsibility in their wrongdoing. All other countries must also do the same. You are a British, Dduck. But instead of pointing at your own country, you declare that the United States should take MORE of the responsibility despite the fact that these other countries had the free will and free choice to act on their own. As a British, you point at America and use America as a scapegoat for doing something that even the British is guilty of doing. How hypocritical. I am an American who sets her own example by recognizing that my country has done some wrong things, and I don't make any excuses for it. You are a British, and you excuse your own country's wrongdoing by placing MORE of the blame on America when we are both guilty of the same wrongdoing????

[dduck]