Site Search:
 
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Should war goes to force Saddam out of Iraq?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Thom



Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 29
Location: Sarajevo

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 9:29 pm    Post subject: America giving Iraq WMD Reply with quote

It was me who posted that list of weapons the west had given Iraq, and it was only concerned with conventional weapons. Obelix is right that most of Iraq's conventional weapondary did not come from the US but I dont think that is what is on dispute. The question is: Where did his Chemical and Biological weapons come from?

That report I posted has no information on WMD whatsoever. However, John Pilger, as I mentioned at the time, published in an essay on the effect of sanctions the fact that labs in the UK and the US exported biological weapons to Saddam's Iraq and had written government approval to do so. He credited the source of the information in the bibliography and when I get home on Thursday, I'll post that source. Hopefully, it'll be available on the net.


Last edited by Thom on Sun Feb 23, 2003 9:33 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 9:54 pm    Post subject: Scapegoat. Reply with quote

dduck wrote:

If I express a negative opinion of the Bush administration it doesn't make me anti-American. It might be fair to say I'm anti-Bush, especially when I use words like "idiot" to describe him.


Expressing your opinion about George Bush is one thing. Pointing at America and saying that she should take most of the blame for providing Saddam with mass destructive weapons clearly pointed out your bias and negative view of the United States.

dduck wrote:
I point the finger at the US to demonstrate the hypocracy of Donald Rumsfeld, and of the present US foreigh policy.


Really? I don't see Donald Rumsfeld's name or even what he stated in any of your post. This hypocracy that you speak of also applies to Great Britain. Your foreign policy is no different than ours. Rolling Eyes

I've already stated why I think the US should shoulder more of the blame - not all, but more. I'm still to be convinced otherwise.

With power, comes authority, with authority, comes responsibility.

The United States is responsible for her own actions, Dduck? I hold my country responsible for their actions and mistakes not because it's a superpower, but because they made those decisions. The question is when will you allow your country to learn to take responsibility of their own actions instead of throwing MOST of the burden to the United States to carry it for you??????? And if the United States do carry MORE of your country's burden and responsibilities, then how do you expect your country to learn anything about responsibility???????

What good is ONE country bearing the most responsibilties if the rest of the world goes on to commit mistakes and then use the US as their dumping ground to shoulder the blame? Even worse - is when a country decides to throw most of the burden of responsibilities on another country, it also indicates that you expect that country to solve the entire mess - a mess that is also created by others!!

Yes, with power comes authority, and with authority comes responsibility. And with responsibility (which you claim your country doesn't bear much) comes maturity.

Even as a human being, I would not want to take the burden of responsibility of any of your choices and mistakes, Iain. I prefer that you handle ALL your mistakes and take responsibility for it, and I expect the same from our countries. Taking responsibility of ALL wrongs we've committed help us become more accountable for our actions and become mature human beings.

To put it in simpler terms, Iain, if I make a mess, I will take full responsiblity for it. If you make a mess, I expect you to do the same. Don't tell me that the spilt milk was more my fault because I'm too distracting. Razz By the same token, the US will be responsible for their own mistakes and will not shoulder more of the blame simply because they are too powerful. Razz

(I'm beginning to like these emicons!!!) Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dduck



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 109
Location: Scotland/Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diana wrote:
Really? I don't see Donald Rumsfeld's name or even what he stated in any of your post.

Here's a link copied from one of my earlier posts.
Click on this link for the Washington Post

Part of the article that you missed the first time round:
Washington Post wrote:
Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.


Diana wrote:
This hypocracy that you speak of also applies to Great Britain. Your foreign policy is no different than ours.

Indeed, I disagree with the British policy too. Blair is often described as a poodle, or puppet to Bush. If I disagree with their common foreign policy it makes more sense to me to aim my criticism at the puppet master and not at the puppet. What do you think?

Quote:
What good is ONE country bearing the most responsibilties if the rest of the world goes on to commit mistakes and then use the US as their dumping ground to shoulder the blame?

That's a fair point. The US does come in for a lot of criticism. As the most prominent culture on the planet it does receive a great deal of positive and negative attention. The same applies to individuals in the public eye - sooner or later they're going to be attacked by the media. It's human nature to criticise the top dog.

However, I'm not having a random moan about the US, I'm having a specific moan about a specific policy of a specific President. As I said before, I liked the last one, and I like most of Tony's other policies too. Just not this one!

Quote:
Even worse - is when a country decides to throw most of the burden of responsibilities on another country, it also indicates that you expect that country to solve the entire mess - a mess that is also created by others!!

That said, I can only echo my previous point above, whilst adding that American leads the world in many ways. Leadership involves sometimes making hard desicions; one of the tricks to successful leadership is to listen to the people being led. Bush and Blair seem not to listen, instead they seem to be on some moral crusade - doing the RIGHT THING no matter what the people say. Eventually, leaders like this earn themselves the title Dictator. Do you think Bush and Blair are listening?

Iain
_________________

Teachers open the door, but you must enter by yourself.
--Chinese Proverb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:38 pm    Post subject: Scapegoat. Reply with quote

dduck wrote:

Here's a link copied from one of my earlier posts.
Click on this link for the Washington Post

Part of the article that you missed the first time round:
Washington Post wrote:
Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.


Dduck, I believe you only mentioned this AFTER THE FACT. You only use this article to point out to Obelix that America is guilty of providing weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. By that time, you had already placed more of the blame on the US, and Rumsfeld had nothing to do with it. As you mentioned earlier, you place more of the blame on the US because they are a superpower. Rolling Eyes



dduck wrote:

Indeed, I disagree with the British policy too. Blair is often described as a poodle, or puppet to Bush. If I disagree with their common foreign policy it makes more sense to me to aim my criticism at the puppet master and not at the puppet. What do you think?


How can you even say that Tony Blair is a puppet of the US? The TRUTH is Tony Blair was elected by the British public. The TRUTH is Tony Blair has a mind of his own, and your leader decided to tag along beside the US without even the US asking him to do so. When we went to war against the terrorists in Afghanistan, the United States didn't ask any of its allies to tag along. However, Tony Blair was there throwing bombs right beside us. And he's doing the same thing again, standing beside us. If Bush was really a puppet master, as you say, he would be holding a gun to Tony Blair's head! However, I don't see any gun to Blair's head. I don't even see Bush twisting his arm. Your leader made ALL the decision himself and you and the British public should hold your leader accountable for those decisions. We had nothing to do with it. The US didn't even have anything to do with your election of Tony Blair!

dduck wrote:


That's a fair point. The US does come in for a lot of criticism. As the most prominent culture on the planet it does receive a great deal of positive and negative attention. The same applies to individuals in the public eye - sooner or later they're going to be attacked by the media. It's human nature to criticise the top dog.


I don't know where you got the idea of criticizing the top dog. Where I come from, when a person committed a crime, only that person goes to jail. In America, when ENRON went down, they went after the people who were responsible for any wrongdoings. The criticisms is always at the person or persons who did the wrong thing. To dump a lot of blame on the US even when the US has nothing or little to do with it is anti-Americanism. The same thing is true when people tell me that the US is responsible for the world's hunger and poverty. This is not human nature - this is scapegoating. The US is being used only as a scapegoat. It is true that our President will be scrutinized and critized by the media and public, but placing MORE of the blame on the United States for something that other countries are also guilty of is downright unfair, discriminatory, and biased.

Do I think that Bush and Blair are doing is right? Well, so far they are doing the right thing. If they really are doing the WRONG thing, we would Already be at war. The fact that we are not at war is an indication that we are still on the right. Bush did the right thing when he first approached the UN Security Council rather than going to war on his own. Now that the international community has protested, Bush is doing the right thing by going back and developing a new resolution. By going back and developing a new resolution is an indication that he may be listening to the international community.

As for his using threats of force against Saddam, even you have to admit that Saddam had FINALLY allowed UN inspectors into his country while under this threat of force. Saddam is the kind of person you will never get anywhere until you threaten him with force. Just look at some of the improvement Iraq has shown already. They even promised to destroy those 100 missiles they've found by March 1st.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obelix



Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 6:25 am    Post subject: Saddam again Reply with quote

I checked the links that Dduck posted concerning weapons of mass destruction. (where do they start and conventional bombs end?)
It's true that 20 years ago some US companies supplied pesticides and other chemicals that COULD be used for other purposes.
They were legal products and were supplied to a country that the USA at the time considered an ally.
The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta also supplied Iraq's Misistry of Education with, among others, anthrax. I presume it was for educational purposes like training doctors. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)

On the other hand, the recent declarations by Iraq on its weapons programmes, according to Deutsche Welle (the German State TV/Radio network) names Germany as the number 1 supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq.
www.dw-world.de/dwelle/cda/detail/dwelle.cda.detail.artikel_drucken/0,3820,1430

Quote:
German firms easily outnumber those from other countries exporting arms to Iraq.

They have delivered technical know-how, components, basic substances and even entire technical facilities for the development of atomic, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Iraq right since 1975.


Military and technical dealings betwen Germany and Iraq are said to date till 2001, ten years after the Gulf war and at a time when international sanctions against Iraq were still in place.

The report says that German autorities, right up to the Finance Ministry tolerated and promoted the illegal arms co-operation.

In October this year (2002) Siemens (German electronics giant) delivered specialized technical equipment to Iraq that could be used as a detonator for an atomic bomb but was supposed to be used for the treatment of kidney stones.

The German government was informed of such dual use equipment but supposedly turned a blind eye.

In 2001 German firms made exports to Iraq which brought German firms PROFITS in the range of 336.5 million Euros.

And, from www.Arabicnews.com
The volume of French exports to Baghdad reached 2 billion dollars making France the largest European exporter to Iraq.

This was in 2000. I doubt that the amount has decreased.

So, I guess we know why Germany and France are so gung-ho not to go to war with Iraq.

So to all you USA bashers, give yourselves a reality check.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 11:30 am    Post subject: France and Germany. Reply with quote

Well, well, well.....Lookee here! Isn't this interesting information Obelix has come across? Yes, now we know the REAL reason why France and Germany are reluctant to go to war, and it certainly has nothing to do with peace. Now that we know where a majority of those weapons of mass destruction came from, we know who to place MORE blame on - Germany and France, the two so-called peacemakers. Isn't this right, Dduck?

You believe that as a superpower, the United States should set an example? The United States can set an example, but the real question is what do you do with other countries like France and Germany who don't follow our example and illegally export these weapons into Iraq during the sanctions? Put the blame on the US? What do you do with countries like Iraq who lied to get anthrax for educational purposes when in fact, they are using it to create weapons? Put the blame on the US?

How interesting that Germany and France is able to get a lot of money from Saddam while the Iraqi people starve. But of course, all Saddam has to do is put the blame on the United States all for those starving Iraqis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dduck



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 109
Location: Scotland/Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 1:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Saddam again Reply with quote

obelix wrote:
It's true that 20 years ago some US companies supplied pesticides and other chemicals that COULD be used for other purposes.

Thanks for having a look at the links, Obelix. There seems, however, to be some translation of terms going on. Compare:

1. Some US companies = declassified government documents + US intelligence + administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
2. Other chemicals = including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
3. COULD be used for other purposes = both military and civilian applications

Washington Post wrote:
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.


obelix wrote:
So to all you USA bashers, give yourselves a reality check.

I find it very easy to believe that what you say about German and French exports to Iraq. It's well known in Britain that British companies were supplying parts of a "super gun" to Iraq before the '91 War. No one believes that there is a co-ordinated plot between the arms manufacturers and the government - they just aren't that smart!

Are you really trying to justify the poor behaviour of previous US administrations because other foreign administrations were also at it? Do you think this is responsible government?

Iain
_________________

Teachers open the door, but you must enter by yourself.
--Chinese Proverb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dduck



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 109
Location: Scotland/Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 1:22 pm    Post subject: Re: France and Germany. Reply with quote

Diana wrote:
Well, well, well.....Lookee here! Isn't this interesting information Obelix has come across?

Diana, if you can't be bothered to read the links that contridict your opinions, whilst repeating those comments that support your own opinions, then you're not really adding anything to the debate.

If you continue like this you'll never have a new opinion, of your own, in your entire life! I say be bothered, be active and really participate!

Iain
_________________

Teachers open the door, but you must enter by yourself.
--Chinese Proverb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obelix



Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:45 pm    Post subject: politics Reply with quote

Dduck, I read all the stuff you gave us links to and you are quoting from the Washington Post which always has a hard on for the Republicans. That is a reality, too. So it is quite easy for them to focus on the negative uses that the stuff could have been put to. However, the material you linked also said that the biological and chemical stuff was supplied to Ministries of the Iraqi government. Iraq, at the time (1983) was an ally of the USA. So, if you are a left wing cynic you believe that the USA deliberately supplied Iraq with all this stuff knowing that it would be turned into chemical and biological weapons that would be used on the people of Iraq.
If you are not a left wing cynic you may believe that the USA supplied the stuff believing that Iraq would use it for the purposes it was supplied for.

My question is, why are you so hung up on what the yanks did 20 years ago while ignoring the fact that the Germans supplied them with proscribed stuff despite sanctions and knowing quite well what the purpose of it all was?

To me that seems to be intellectual dishonesty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 10:34 pm    Post subject: Re: France and Germany. Reply with quote

dduck wrote:
Diana wrote:
Well, well, well.....Lookee here! Isn't this interesting information Obelix has come across?

Diana, if you can't be bothered to read the links that contridict your opinions, whilst repeating those comments that support your own opinions, then you're not really adding anything to the debate.

If you continue like this you'll never have a new opinion, of your own, in your entire life! I say be bothered, be active and really participate!

Iain


What links contradict my opinions, Dduck? Confused You claimed that the United States was guilty of providing Saddam with weapons of mass destruction. As far as I know, I never disagreed with you on that. I know that the United States, Great Britian, Russia, Germany, and France provided these weapons to Iraq. In fact, I pointed out to you that every country who provided those weapons to Iraq are EQUALLY responsible. You, on the other hand, stated that the United States should hold MORE of the responsibility, and that's what I disagree with you on. So, what links are you talking about that contradicts my opinion, Dduck? We were discussing about why the US should take MORE of the blame. Don't you remember? I am actively participating in our discussion. Can't you see that I answered your questions?

You want me to form a new opinion, Dduck?? I have no problems with that. This is MY NEW OPINION: Germany and France are the countries who should shoulder the MOST BLAME BECAUSE they provided Iraq with the vast majority of these weapons of mass destruction than any other country. What I previously said about all countries being EQUALLY responsible has finally been changed. So, what do you think of my new opinion?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
action1201



Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Posts: 3
Location: the ocean uinversity of China mailbox 1201

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surprised USA should not attack Iraq.Every country has its own way to sovle its own problem. others has no rights to get into it .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pugachevV



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 2295

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:36 am    Post subject: Saddam Reply with quote

Saddam may be the antichrist but he is not short of courage. He is hanging tough although he knows he has no chance of defeating the USA in the coming war.
As he says, he was born in Iraq and he will die in Iraq.
He may be bluffing, of course.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
action1201



Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Posts: 3
Location: the ocean uinversity of China mailbox 1201

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 4:18 am    Post subject: Do we really know the true? Reply with quote

Saddam was described as a devil by the media of west world. But why Iraq people support him?They also have the TV,Internet and many other ways to learn about the true.Apparenly,not all the reports are real.The US government need more oil and the people who die and wound are the victims of political pride and natrual resoures. Both sides will suffer a lot from the uggly and misestimated war!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pugachevV



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 2295

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:34 am    Post subject: dictatorships Reply with quote

Action, you live in a dictatorship yourself.
How would you get rid of your government?
You don't have a chance to elect a democratic government and if you try to overthrow them by force you will be dead in a hurry.
It is even worse in Iraq.
There are secret police and informers everywhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Do we really know the true? Reply with quote

action1201 wrote:
Saddam was described as a devil by the media of west world. But why Iraq people support him?They also have the TV,Internet and many other ways to learn about the true.Apparenly,not all the reports are real.The US government need more oil and the people who die and wound are the victims of political pride and natrual resoures. Both sides will suffer a lot from the uggly and misestimated war!


A majority of the Iraqi people don't support Saddam, Action. Many of them fled the country. Those who are living in Iraq right now are too scared to speak out. Saddam tortured and killed millions of his people, so they live in fear. Anyone who speaks out against Saddam and his family had their tongues cut off. Saddam controls the media. In fact, Saddam's son controls the newspaper in Iraq. Saddam will only allow his people to see what he wants them to see on TV.

Of course, the Iraqi people also don't like and trust the United States and the United Nations, and quite frankly I don't blame them. In 1991, when the Iraqis rebelled against Saddam, he gassed his own people using chemicals. However, the US turned their back on the Iraqi people when they needed help. They stood aside and did nothing while Saddam gassed his own people with chemicals.

If you are only concern about the Iraqi people suffering.......well, they are already suffering. They've been suffering for a long time under Saddam's cruel dictatorship.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Opinions All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Dave's ESL Cafe is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Banner Advertising | Bookstore / Alta Books | FAQs | Articles | Interview with Dave
Copyright © 1995-2011 Dave's ESL Cafe | All Rights Reserved | Contact Dave's ESL Cafe | Site Map

Teachers College, Columbia University: Train to Teach English Here or Abroad
SIT
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group