WAR with Iraq

Here are some opinions of my classmates and mine, i am waiting for your responses :
# FROM: Stefaan Yetimyan (10/02/02 7:19 PM GMT -06:00) [ Send a personal message to Stefaan Yetimyan]
SUBJECT: ....
I actually don't think that there is a solution for every problem. Our attitude toward world-issues is shaped mainly by facts, partly by environment and information. If history is any indicator, it may be inevitable to prevent another war in the near or far future. It doesn't necessarily has to be a Saddam-related war, it can be any terror-related war. Generally speaking, human beings are vulnerable and destructive at the same time. Stefaan.
# FROM: Ann Sarrafzadeh (10/03/02 3:50 PM GMT -06:00) [ Send a personal message to Ann Sarrafzadeh]
SUBJECT: Stefaan's pessimism
Stefaan, it seems that you are saying that we human beings have a natural inclination to war. Is that right? Is there any other way to express our aggression besides war? I guess sports competition is supposed to do that, right? However, I don't think an Olympics competition between the U.S. and Iraq would solve this problem.

# FROM: Stefaan Yetimyan (10/04/02 11:02 PM GMT -06:00) [ Send a personal message to Stefaan Yetimyan]
SUBJECT: ....
Ann, although you make an excellent point here, for myself I cannot really make the comparison with sports. In a competition, the purpose is to triumph over your opponent. The objective in a war is to crush your adversary, to win the battle. I never said that going to war is a solution, it is an inevitable fact. Yes, in the extreme humans have an inclination toward war, and they would do everything to defend their assets. I see it like the eagle, who would attack anyone entering his territory.
was really interested in Yugo's perspective. I wonder if everyone noticed the demonstration going on Friday afternoon just up the street from our classroom building. A lot of Americans feel they are being lied to and they are angry about the prospect of war. Many of them were carrying placards and chanting on Friday in front of a federal building on 2nd Street. However, there are two sides to every argument. I read an interesting column in Sunday's SJ Mercury News written by a man who worked in the American Embassy in Baghdad 10 years ago. He had a lot of personal contact with Saddam Hussein and he has some fascinating stories. The column is pretty long, but I'm copying it here and I hope some of you will take time to read it:

Posted on Sun, Oct. 13, 2002 How Saddam thinks By Joseph Wilson

President Bush has made his preference clear: He wants Saddam Hussein's scalp, or at least wants him run out of town -- an approach that virtually ensures a bloody American invasion and long occupation of Iraq. And Congress late last week gave the president broad authority to launch that war, with or without United Nations involvement.

The U.N. Security Council, meanwhile, is pursuing a business-as-usual policy, reluctant to put any teeth into the possible resumption of weapons inspections until Saddam cheats yet again.

Both the U.S. and U.N. approaches are dangerously flawed. They ignore crucial lessons we learned in the Persian Gulf War about how Saddam thinks.

If history is any guide, ``regime change'' as a rationale for military action will ensure that Saddam will use every weapon in his arsenal to defend himself. You need look no further for evidence than his use of chemical weapons to repel Iranian invaders during the Iran-Iraq war. As the just-released CIA report suggests, when cornered, Saddam is very likely to fight dirty.

But history also shows that the less-confrontational approach favored by some on the Security Council -- France and Russia -- isn't likely to work, either. Saddam has, after all, repeatedly flouted U.N. resolutions and ignored its demands to let weapons inspectors back into the country for almost four years.

Twelve years ago, I was in charge of the American Embassy in Baghdad. On Aug. 6, 1990, four days after the invasion of Kuwait, I met with Saddam for nearly two hours and listened to him gloat at the overthrow of the Kuwaiti government and threaten to ``spill the blood of 10,000 American soldiers in the sands of the Arabian desert'' should we counterattack. Over the next several months, my staff and I worked day and night to try to persuade him not just to leave Kuwait, but also to allow Americans in Kuwait and Iraq to go home and to release the hundreds of foreign hostages, including Americans, whom he had taken as ``human shields.'' The lessons we gleaned during that period are applicable to today's looming conflict.

What we learned firsthand is what the CIA psychiatrists have said for years: Saddam is an egomaniacal sociopath whose penchant for high-risk gambles is exceeded only by a propensity for miscalculation. Those psychiatrists, who study the characters of world leaders, believe that he suffers from what is popularly called ``malignant narcissism,'' a sense of self-worth that drives him to act in ways that others would deem irrational, such as invading neighboring countries.

But the trait also makes him highly sensitive to direct confrontation and embarrassment, even as he is contemptuous of compromise.

`In your face' approach

Shortly after the invasion, I met with my senior staff to game out possible outcomes, given the history of Iraq in times of conflict. When the monarchy was overthrown in 1958, foreigners, including Americans, had been dragged from their hotels and hanged in public. At the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, a visiting delegation of Iranians disappeared in Baghdad, never to be seen again. Our conclusion was that some of us attending that meeting would not survive.

We also recognized that the tra***ional diplomatic methods had not worked; Ambassador April Glaspie had been severely, albeit unjustly, criticized for not being tough enough in her meeting with Saddam just days before the invasion. What she did at that meeting was follow longstanding instructions from Washington to urge, but not demand, that Iraq's dispute with Kuwait over border and oil issues be settled diplomatically. She then left for official business in Washington.

After the invasion, those of us still at the embassy opted for a confrontational ``in your face'' approach opposite to diplomatic convention, but well-suited to Saddam's understanding of the world. Whenever Saddam tried to garner international sympathy or support, we pushed back hard. Saddam would never yield to tra***ional diplomatic persuasion, because he equates compromise with weakness. Therefore, we let no action go uncriticized and sought to embarrass him whenever possible, to shame him into concessions.

The first test of this approach came when Saddam tried to portray himself as a host rather than hostage-taker when he appeared on television with a young British boy and his terrified family. We immediately issued statements that true Arab knights, as Saddam liked to be called, did not hide behind women's skirts -- mocking his masculinity. Our comments were broadcast to the world and repeated by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in a speech. Just days after Thatcher chided him, Saddam released all women and children. While we could never prove cause and effect, we knew we had succeeded.

Later, when the Iraqi government circulated a diplomatic note threatening *****mmarily execute anybody harboring foreigners -- at a time when the embassy was providing refuge to 125 Americans stuck in Baghdad -- I wore a hangman's noose in lieu of a tie to a news briefing. I shared the note with the international media and told them that if the Iraqis wanted to execute me for protecting Americans, I would bring my own rope.

The Iraqis were furious at my black joke and harangued me publicly. Then they withdrew the diplomatic note -- another indication that Saddam was thin-skinned in the face of aggressive opposition.

Confrontation worked

At one point, Saddam sought to justify the invasion of his neighbor as a step toward the liberation of Palestine and, in a particularly ludicrous assertion, he claimed to be the champion of the Muslim world against the Christian infidel capitalists. We countered that several hundred thousand Muslim Pakistanis, Indians and Sri Lankans were languishing in Iraqi refugee camps. Within days, Saddam released all of them.

As we applied these tactics to the task of attempting to reverse the invasion of Kuwait, we understood that the only way to try to avoid a war was to be credible in threatening one. Saddam had announced the annexation of Kuwait on Aug. 8, but by the end of September he was squirming, trying to retain as much of his conquest as possible as we kept beating the drums of war.

We told Saddam that the United States had accepted the fact that the men he was still holding hostage would be killed and convinced him that they were not of any worth to him. On the contrary, we said, they were a liability; if the Iraqis brutalized any of them, American outrage could well trigger a war to avenge the mistreatment.

He released the hostages in early December. Our entire embassy staff and virtually all other foreigners who wanted to leave also were allowed to go before the start of war.

In each case, taking a tough stand worked.

In the end, of course, the United States didn't succeed in peacefully dislodging Iraqi troops from Kuwait. But in the days leading up to Operation Desert Storm the United States again took a confrontational approach that may well have prevented an even deadlier war.

A week before the United States launched the assault on Iraqi forces in Kuwait, Secretary of State James Baker met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz in Geneva. Throughout December it had become clear that Saddam would fight a military battle that he knew he would lose, calculating that in defeat he could still win the political war. In a region that feels deeply the humiliations it has suffered over centuries at the hands of imperialists, conquerors and more recently Israel, merely standing up to the West is considered a victory.

It fell to Baker to try to deter Saddam from using chemical or biological weapons. In the meeting, Baker made it clear that if Iraq attempted to defend itself in Kuwait by using weapons of mass destruction, the United States would respond by ``eliminating the current Iraqi regime'' -- a not-so-veiled reference to a nuclear strike.

During the war, Saddam launched Scud missiles against Saudi Arabia, set fire to the Kuwaiti oil fields and did everything he could to draw Israel into a broader conflict. But he did not use chemical or biological weapons against our troops. In the end, he prized his own survival above all.

You could argue -- and some liberals have -- that deterrence alone could work again now, and that neither war nor tough inspections are needed. But effective deterrence requires that world leaders issue ultimatums backed by the credible threat of force, which they have not been willing to do so far.

Build on experience

So the question remains: Can we disarm Saddam this time without risking a chemical attack or a broader regional war that threatens our allies?

The answer, I think, is yes, but only if we reject the approaches favored by many in the Bush administration and by France and Russia, and build instead on the experiences of the gulf war.

An aggressive U.N.-sanctioned campaign to disarm Iraq -- bolstered by a militarily supported inspection process -- would combine the best of the U.S. and U.N. approaches, a robust disarmament policy with the international legitimacy the United States seeks. Secretary of State Colin Powell is pushing the Security Council to adopt such an approach.

But he will have to overcome French and Russian concerns that other harsh demands in the U.S.-British draft resolution leave Saddam little room to save face and avoid war.

One of the strongest arguments for a militarily supported inspection plan is that it doesn't threaten Saddam with extinction, a threat that could push him to fight back with the very weapons we're seeking to destroy. If disarmament is the goal, Saddam can be made to understand that only his arsenal is at stake, not his survival.

Our message to Saddam can be simple: ``You are going to lose your weapons-of-mass-destruction capability either through the inspections or through a sustained cruise-missile assault on the 700 suspicious sites the United Nations has already identified. If you rebuild them, we will attack again. And if you use weapons of mass destruction or attack another country in the region, we will destroy you and your regime.'' The decision to live or die then becomes his to make.

The ultimate lesson of the gulf war may be that when offered the choice, Saddam will sacrifice almost everything before sacrificing his own life or grip on power.

JOSEPH WILSON was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from 1988 to 1991. He also served as special assistant to President Clinton at the National Security Council and as ambassador to Gabon. He wrote this article for Perspective.

[Reply | Send a personal message to Ann Sarrafzadeh]
FROM: David Jung (11/07/02 10:26 AM GMT -06:00)
SUBJECT: My impression of the article ùẵA wide World of Troubleùẵ
[Reply | Send a personal message to David Jung]

Since the catastrophe of Sep. 11, everyone in America has said, ùẵGod blesses America,ùẵ like ùẵGood morning.ùẵ It seems that almost all Americans, at least those who speak these faithful words, have deep faiths in God, especially these holy words have frequently been said by the U.S. President on TVs. Now most residents in the U.S.A are terrified of any foreboding about another terror or crime, and some of them are also frightened of foreigners, especially someone who is from the Middle East. Now America is being on the war against terrorists, so articles about terrors in any journal can be found easily, also we can hear about it too easily; I can't reckon how many articles about the terror are on journals and newspapers every week. And the U.S. Government has been trying to find the answer how they defeat terrorists and to invade into any country that is likely supporting to terrorists with American troops, about 290,000 U.S. troops are around the world. This number excludes 1,100,000 troops in the U.S.A. However, that the political responsibilities of the president's team are standing against their God's words is one of the most morose elements to me: According to the Holy Bible, ùẵDo not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.ùẵ Matthew 7:1~2.

After the events of Sep. 11, the U.S. President decided that the prime leader was Osama Bin Laden with no evidence, now everyone knows what he did because he had confessed what and how he controlled, and to invade wherever he was to catch him, but he has not yet been caught unfortunately. In other words, the U.S. Government has had no result from the war. However, the President has continued judging any other who do not follow what the U.S. President want. Mr. President wants them not to have any dangerous weapon because you are not allowed to have anyone America doesn't want: Especially, Bush team is suddenly faced with new threat from North Korea; Here is my questions why it is in a sudden and whether the threat from North Korea is new?; Especially, every Korean knows North Korea has been trying to have a nuclear weapon. If so, is it something wrong that they have it for their sovereign authorities? If America has one, why another country can't have one else? Yes, we can say that this country, North Korea, is too dangerous to have any powerful weapon, so they should not be allowed, just as parents don't allow children to have guns that parents have. It means like that any country that doesn't have more power than America shouldn't think about having any powerful weapon that America has. If not, American troops in the whole world would make you not to do anything you want because your country doesn't have enough power to reject what America wants. We can also say that they might use it to America. Do you think about why they want to use it to America? Is there no reason except they are mad people?

Using troops can never be the best solution and should not be what any American wants, so the U.S. Government should change their policies on the war against the terrorism. My thought about Bush team's policies will be too extreme or excessive. Using troops, however, can never be the best solution and should not be what any American wants. I read the article ùẵA Wide World of Troubleùẵ in the Newsweek. The main point of this article is that because there are many accidents around the world, the nation's official threat level should be changed to higher level (red) than now (yellow), but America does not have any buffer to assimilate the higher level. America has been being on the war since the events of Sept. 11. Unfortunately, how American people feel from the war is not what Bush team wanted when the war was started. On the other word, that most American people are getting more frightful is not the purpose of the war, so the U.S. Government should change their policies on the war, as soon as American desires to feel less afraid of the whole world.




Chỏằ kẵ không hỏằÊp lỏằ?!

FROM: Ayako Takano (02/07/03 2:30 PM GMT -06:00)
SUBJECT: War with Iraq
[Reply | Send a personal message to Ayako Takano]
As Colin Powell reported Iraq's interference for inspection, or concealment of weapons at U.N. on Wednesday, Bush's Administration intends to justify to war with Iraq. In the report, we can see that Saddam Hussein deceives the U.N. obviously. Actually, he seems to be evilest person who plans incident in the world. Indeed it is dangerous that he possesses many kinds of strong weapons. However, I am wondering whether it is a suitable way to go to Iraq. Is there no other choice to solve this problem? If the war begins, it will bring many sacrifices in both countries, and we will be scared of revenge of terrorist. As many people pointed out, Bush's Administration might use the war to divert the people's attention from economic problems. In ad***ion, he seems to have much concern to Iraqi oil. Anyway, I can't agree to attack to Iraq in this situation. For eliminating one man's plot, how much expense we should pay?
[Reply | Send a personal message to Ayako Takano]
FROM: Ann Sarrafzadeh (02/11/03 3:08 PM GMT -06:00)
SUBJECT: economic concerns
[Reply | Send a personal message to Ann Sarrafzadeh]
It's interesting that most of the comments reflect a concern for the world economy. I guess politicians think about right/wrong, national security, and political influence; the average person, however, is more concerned about whether he/she will have a job or put food on the table. It seems that most citizens of the world are, like most of you, worried about the effects of war on the financial life of countries everywhere.
[Reply | Send a personal message to Ann Sarrafzadeh]
FROM: YoonJoo Kim (02/12/03 3:51 PM GMT -06:00)
SUBJECT: War With Iraq
[Reply | Send a personal message to YoonJoo Kim]
Like many people in the world, I'm also in the side of against war with Iraq. Bush should fine the other way to solve the problems about Iraq rather than war. Once war begins, too many things will be dstroyed. Somehow, it can occer more serious result that we can recover as we saw at movies. Who konws. If Bush is wise then we think, he will be able to find the other way. Ohterwise he is just as clever as attacking Iraq. I hope that Bush can found the epochal way to solve those problem finally, not effecting the other countries.
[Reply | Send a personal message to YoonJoo Kim]
FROM: Anonymous471514 (02/26/03 1:46 AM GMT -06:00)
SUBJECT: War With Iraq from nancy
[Reply | Send a personal message to Anonymous471514 ]
This question has lingered my mind for a long period. Annùẵùẵs poster has completely described my all questions, so I tried to search all backgrounds about North Korea from internet. I thought if you want to know why DPRK (North Korea) was so noisy recently, I would like *****mmarize some backgrounds that I had known for classmates. If there are some mistakes please donùẵùẵt hesitate to correct.
Tensions between North Korea and Washington have risen up recently several months. Washington announced that Pyongyang is secretly working on nuclear program that is seriously violating a 1994 agreement on last October. In the December, a Spanish special forces boarded a North Korean vessel that was setting out to Yemen to be found with missiles among its cargo. Then the DPRK expelled weapons inspectors and dropped out the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty and restarted its nuclear facilities. The DPRK insisted this action only for solving electricity problem and handling the heat and light shortage, and they will tackle to build four nuclear power plants. The U.N. warned North Korea that canùẵùẵt violate the 1994 agreement and the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty; otherwise, will bring on an economy sanction. Pyongyang has persisted ùẵùẵany sanction will equate a declaration of warùẵùẵ, and singles the U.S. out to have a two-way dialogue. On the other side, the U.S. reaffirm that she doesnùẵùẵt have intention of any attack with North Korea, and any negotiation with DPRK should be proceeding by multilateral conference, and these countries should include European alliance, England, France, Russia, China, South Korea and Japan. .
In my opinion, I thought the U.N. is getting weak in the international political influence. Most resolutions from the U.N. made that always not be respected by the relative country. At the same time, I thought China should give more diplomatic efforts on this incident because China supplies the nearly 80 percent of its food, commo***y and fuel oil needs to North Korea, so the advices from China could effect the decisions by DPRK, but China is going to develop their economy, so it doesnùẵùẵt intend to join in any point of contention. Why the U.S. doesnùẵùẵt care about North Korea so much even she is more dangerous than Iraq? Maybe the U.S. think that she can reason with North Korea, and the North Korea needs American grain support, so above actions from North Korea just the way force the U.S. to have dialogue with them.
[Reply | Send a personal message to Anonymous471514
Chỏằ kẵ không hỏằÊp lỏằ?!

Ànd here is my opinion :
FROM: Trung Nguyen (02/13/03 12:46 AM GMT -06:00)
SUBJECT:
[Reply | Send a personal message to Trung Nguyen]
I have read Ms Ann's article and other students' ideas. I think this is a good and interesting discussion. In my humble opinion, obviously the Bush government doesn't have clear and enough evidences for accusing Iraq. Discuss about it now is a bit late because the war will begin anyway. The US has to start this war because it can prove the power of US military with the world and can bring many benefits to the States. Let's ignore the loss of Iraq such as deaths, injuries, damages, etc. Just talk about what will happen to the US. If the US wins (95%), the benefit is too big. That will prove the power of US army and weapons. US can sell weapons, which bring a sum up money that contributes a big percentage to GDP. In the War I and II, the US is the biggest weapon-exporting country in the world. Many conflicting areas in the world need weapons. They can think about �if USA always wins with its weapons and army why can we lose if we also have their weapons and army training�. Talking about economy, we can consider taking possession of oil resource as a reason and a benefit. Everyone already knows the importance of it. Furthermore, after disarming Iraq, USA will free to attack North Korea and then prevent a country to have nuclear weapons as USA. Winning a war make US citizens believe more in the government. And if this action can raise the economy, Bush and Republic party will have advantage in next election. Here is another perspective of mine: the USA won the Afghanistan War, and now it desire to win another war against the Muslim people. The Afghanistan War shows that the Muslim nations don't unify and part of them thinks US is right. They think US fights for eliminating terrorism. But now, without the world and even the allies 's trusting in its evidences, USA wants to challenge the Muslim world again and maybe alone (Bush). If USA wins, it can say, �the Muslim world submits the US power�. It means that the States wins many battles it participates in then it can do whatever it wants in the field. Any nations doesn't get along with it can meet troubles. From Yugoslavia to Afghanistan in recent years and now Iraq again after Gulf War (and may be North Korea next), USA talks about fighting for human rights, preventing terrorism, War crime judging, etc. So I wonder if the US knows that it create deaths and catastrophes to other nations, which can call terrorism, war crime and violating human rights. Let's take a second talk about human rights. I think the biggest human right is the Right of alive. Creating war is preventing life. So it strongly violates human rights.
I don't intend to make an essay. I just want to express my opinion. Yes,i am also against the war,but I think US also has some reasons for its action.The things we can do is just discussing and watching.I think whether it is right or wrong,whether people against it or not,the war will occur because it will be part of history.
Chữ ký không hợp lệ!