Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    The Americans did not impose the sanctions on Iraq. The UN did.
    The reason why the whole sanctions system did not work, was because the UN (especially countries like France) allowed for loopholes in the system. The result was that Saddam was not really under pressure, whilst the population was. Perverse effects.

    Don't blame the US for this.
    im glad you replied because i couldnt be bothered. im shocked that Kofi Annan and the rest of the UN corruption gang didnt get more press over their oil-for-money scandal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    The Americans did not impose the sanctions on Iraq. The UN did.
    The reason why the whole sanctions system did not work, was because the UN (especially countries like France) allowed for loopholes in the system. The result was that Saddam was not really under pressure, whilst the population was. Perverse effects.

    Don't blame the US for this.
    Just because there were loopholes in the system doesnt mean the US should have taken advantage of the situation. I suggest you read the article i posted to understand what im talking about
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kraslan)
    Just because there were loopholes in the system doesnt mean the US should have taken advantage of the situation. I suggest you read the article i posted to understand what im talking about
    I thought it was the French that were taking advantage of the loopholes by continuing to sign up big oil and arms deals with Iraq. Did I get that wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kraslan)
    Just because there were loopholes in the system doesnt mean the US should have taken advantage of the situation. I suggest you read the article i posted to understand what im talking about
    i swear this forum is going backwards...what 'loopholes'? what US taking advantage? youve already shifted your opinion drastically, how about a complete reversal and be done with it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just a sample extract from the article i posted the link to to prove my point:

    "Over the last three years, through research and interviews with diplomats, U.N. staff, scholars, and journalists, I have acquired many of the key confidential U.N. documents concerning the administration of Iraq sanctions. I obtained these documents on the condition that my sources remain anonymous. What they show is that the United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country. And it has done so in the face of enormous human suffering, including massive increases in child mortality and widespread epidemics. It has sometimes given a reason for its refusal to approve humanitarian goods, sometimes given no reason at all, and sometimes changed its reason three or four times, in each instance causing a delay of months. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage-treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers."
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kraslan)
    Just a sample extract from the article i posted the link to to prove my point:

    "Over the last three years, through research and interviews with diplomats, U.N. staff, scholars, and journalists, I have acquired many of the key confidential U.N. documents concerning the administration of Iraq sanctions. I obtained these documents on the condition that my sources remain anonymous. What they show is that the United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country. And it has done so in the face of enormous human suffering, including massive increases in child mortality and widespread epidemics. It has sometimes given a reason for its refusal to approve humanitarian goods, sometimes given no reason at all, and sometimes changed its reason three or four times, in each instance causing a delay of months. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage-treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers."
    Perhaps if Saddam hadn't been busy building 60 bedroom en-suite palaces with gold taps the Iraqi people might not have suffered so much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kraslan)
    Just a sample extract from the article i posted the link to to prove my point:

    "Over the last three years, through research and interviews with diplomats, U.N. staff, scholars, and journalists, I have acquired many of the key confidential U.N. documents concerning the administration of Iraq sanctions. I obtained these documents on the condition that my sources remain anonymous. What they show is that the United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country. And it has done so in the face of enormous human suffering, including massive increases in child mortality and widespread epidemics. It has sometimes given a reason for its refusal to approve humanitarian goods, sometimes given no reason at all, and sometimes changed its reason three or four times, in each instance causing a delay of months. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage-treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers."
    the author refers to UN sanction documents...no?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kraslan)
    Just a sample extract from the article i posted the link to to prove my point:

    "Over the last three years, through research and interviews with diplomats, U.N. staff, scholars, and journalists, I have acquired many of the key confidential U.N. documents concerning the administration of Iraq sanctions. I obtained these documents on the condition that my sources remain anonymous. What they show is that the United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country. And it has done so in the face of enormous human suffering, including massive increases in child mortality and widespread epidemics. It has sometimes given a reason for its refusal to approve humanitarian goods, sometimes given no reason at all, and sometimes changed its reason three or four times, in each instance causing a delay of months. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage-treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers."
    You cannot prove anything with an article. It only ever reflects the views of the author. It's only a contribution to a debate, it's not fact.

    Check your sources:

    Joy Gordon is assistant professor of philosophy at Fairfield University in Connecticut. She received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale and a J.D. from Boston University. Prior research interests include Latin American political thought. Her recent work is in Third World and leftist critiques of Western theories of human rights. She is currently writing a book on economic sanctions and their role within the larger context of international governance.
    (cf. http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publicat...0/Travers.html)

    Your source clearly has strong view on the subject. Hence, she is biased. Her accounts are not objective fact.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    You cannot prove anything with an article. It only ever reflects the views of the author. It's only a contribution to a debate, it's not fact.

    Check your sources:

    Joy Gordon is assistant professor of philosophy at Fairfield University in Connecticut. She received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale and a J.D. from Boston University. Prior research interests include Latin American political thought. Her recent work is in Third World and leftist critiques of Western theories of human rights. She is currently writing a book on economic sanctions and their role within the larger context of international governance.
    (cf. http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publicat...0/Travers.html)

    Your source clearly has strong view on the subject. Hence, she is biased. Her accounts are not objective fact.
    Well done Zizero. I was just doing a search for Joy Gordan. You beat me to it. Harper Magazine doesn't seem that high up in the objectivity rankings either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, maybe she is biased in some of her writings, but you cant argue that because she is biased then we can disregard her work altogether.

    Although some of her work may be opinionated, i dont see how the last three sentences of the paragraph I copied could be biased since she is listing some events:

    "Since August 1991..."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Unless ofcourse you're arguing that she's making up that part...but thats a totally different story
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kraslan)
    Ok, maybe she is biased in some of her writings, but you cant argue that because she is biased then we can disregard her work altogether.

    Although some of her work may be opinionated, i dont see how the last three sentences of the paragraph I copied could be biased since she is listing some events:

    "Since August 1991..."
    She hasn't evidenced a damn word of it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    She hasn't evidenced a damn word of it.
    Well then like i said...thats a totally different story.
    Its a matter of whether you choose to believe or not.
    What evidence has the U.S. given that Bin-Laden was responsible for 9/11?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    She hasn't evidenced a damn word of it.
    Then again you cant always trust evidence...as was proven in Iraq
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    She hasn't evidenced a damn word of it.
    Then again you cant always trust evidence...as was proven in Iraq
    Where are all the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein allegedly had in his possession?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kraslan)
    Well then like i said...thats a totally different story.
    Its a matter of whether you choose to believe or not.
    What evidence has the U.S. given that Bin-Laden was responsible for 9/11?
    Bin Laden's own testimony? Didn't he admit it in one of his tapes/videos?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kraslan)
    Then again you cant always trust evidence...as was proven in Iraq
    Where are all the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein allegedly had in his possession?
    There was no evidence of the existance of WMD's. We all know that. It was a pack of lies. That much I can no longer deny.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Bin Laden's own testimony? Didn't he admit it in one of his tapes/videos?
    In the first video that came out Bin-Laden said "I commend those who have done this"

    but he never said that he himself did it? Some people might argue that there were many clues and hints in the other tapes...ok maybe so...but what about the weapons in Iraq?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well done Zizero. I was just doing a search for Joy Gordan. You beat me to it. Harper Magazine doesn't seem that high up in the objectivity rankings either.
    Harpers Magazine is not the only magazine who printed this article
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    You cannot prove anything with an article. It only ever reflects the views of the author. It's only a contribution to a debate, it's not fact.

    Check your sources:

    Joy Gordon is assistant professor of philosophy at Fairfield University in Connecticut. She received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale and a J.D. from Boston University. Prior research interests include Latin American political thought. Her recent work is in Third World and leftist critiques of Western theories of human rights. She is currently writing a book on economic sanctions and their role within the larger context of international governance.
    (cf. http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publicat...0/Travers.html)

    Your source clearly has strong view on the subject. Hence, she is biased. Her accounts are not objective fact.
    hehe, she went to Yale and then Boston for peats sake...!!! you dont much more proof of bias than that!!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 13, 2004
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.