TAK Home
 
 

  goldmine iraq
 
 

Bombs on Iraq December, 1998 

From: Markus 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:34:52 +0100
Subject: The bombardment of the Irak

Hello TAK members!
Right in these minutes I got the news that the USA bombarded the Irak. What do you think about this? Was it allright? Or was it wrong? Do you argree with what your president did? Tell me what you think about it! Was ther another solution, or not? Why did they bombard the Irak? 
Markus 



From: Greg in Ohio
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:40:14 -0500
Subject: The bombardment of the Irak

The bombing of Iraq can be looked at in many different ways. I don't think the President of the United States did attack to take attention off of his ownself, and the impeachment hearings. While, the bombing may not have been the only way to solve the United States problems with Iraq, I believe it may have been the quickest way to help out the world and Iraq's neighbors, but there is more than one way to solve problems and war is not always the best way to do so. I don't agree with Clinton's timing, with Christmas one week away and now he's taking the troops away from their families and other important people in their lives. It's not totally wrong attacking them, but I don't think that it was absolutely necessary to fight back at this point. America will lose many of it's soldiers over this fight that is beginning in the Middle East. that may be the worst part out of everything is the lives that will be lost. I hope I have answered your question in a way that you can understand my point of view.
Greg 



From: Theresa in Ohio
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:33:41 -0500 
Subject: The bombardment of the Irak

I think that what our president did was the best thing that we could've done because the leader of Iraq needed to know that we weren't going to be pushed around and he needed to follow our agreement. I don't really think that there are other ways that we could've solved this because Bill Clinton tried everything. The only thing that I feel bad about is for the innocent people that Hussein is letting die because we are bombing them. I think that maybe he should just give up because he should know that he is going to lose to the USA and Britain. They bombarded Iraq because the US had reason to believe that Hussein had atomic bombs and other harmful bombs that could do lots of damage but he wouldn't let the US check his "kingdoms" to see if there were. He was supposed to let the US check anything that they thought was suspicious as of the agreement after The Gulf War. Thank you for taking my response and reading it. 
Theresa M. 



From: Nuri and Sezen in Hamburg
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:16:12 +0100 
Subject: Iraq-Bombing "Our reaction to Teresa M."

Dear Teresa,
we have read your letter and we want to tell you that we couldn`t get your arguments!
We have decided to write you in German, because it is a theme with many emotions, we hope that you can understand our letter.

An dem Tag als die USA den Irak bombadiert hat, haben wir als erstes in der Schule, obwohl wir Englischunterricht hatten, über den Bombenangriff gesprochen. Die meisten Schueler waren geschockt, über die Bilder, die in den Nachrichten gezeigt worden sind. Zum groessten Teil waren unter den Opfern Kinder und Frauen also nur unschuldige Personen.
"Nun frage ich Dich ob Du diese Bilder auch gesehen hast, oder bei euch nur Bilder von den zerstoerten Stuetzpunkten gezeigt worden sind ?" Außerdem moechten wir Dir mit diesen Brief sagen, daß wir ganz und gar nicht deine Meinung vertreten koennen, und von der USA enttaeuscht sind. Denn die USA besitzt auf der Welt eine Vorbildfunktion, deswegen duerfen sie nicht so schnell zur Waffengewalt greifen, ganz besonders nicht in diesem Moment, wo euer President sich in einer politisch schlechten Lage befindet.

Nun stellen wir dir die Frage, wie Du es finden wuerdest, wenn ploetzlich ein Land wie z.B. Russland gegen euren Willen darauf besteht, euch zu kontrollieren. Und die Begruendung abgeben wuerde, zum Wohle der Weltbevölkerung zu handeln. Wuerdest du dies als gut empfinden oder wuerdest du dich dagegen wehren? Meiner Meinung nach wuerdest du dich dagegen entscheiden, denn niemand moechte, dass ein fremdes Land sein eigenes Land kontrollieren laest. Ich finde, die USA hat sehr schlecht gehandelt, denn ich finde der Bombenangriff hat nicht viel gebracht; eher das Gegenteil: er hat die Lage verschlechtert.

Wenn der Irak wircklich Atombomben (Bio- Chemiewaffen) gebaut hat, dann sollte die USA allen voran zu Verhandlungen aufrufen, denn nicht alles muss man mit Gewalt loesen. Wenn die USA dies getan haette, waere die USA seiner Vorbildfunktion gerecht geworden.

You can see that we can tell you many things about this topic. If you want to speak with us more please write us. We can also answer in English if you like!

Bye , Bye
Nuri E. and Sezen S.



From: Nicola in Illinois
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:41:24 -0600
Subject: Iraq attack

I think that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq, not because he wanted to, but because he had to. Iraq broke an agreement with the USA which stated that after the gulf war the US could have knowledge and access to the "Kingdoms" of iraq. I really don't think that the president wanted to hurt all the poor people living there, but I think if he hadn't done it it would put a lot more people in danger. I do, however, feel that he did this at this particular time to take the attention away from his impeachment hearings.
thank you for listening to my opinion 
nicki 



From: Lena in Hamburg
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:18:07 +0100
Subject: Nicola-Iraq attack 

Nicki,
I think nobody has to bomb anything!
It´s true that Iraq broke an agreement but that is not enough of a reason to bomb Iraq. In my opinion it´s not right to make peace by war. There must be another way to stop Iraq from producing illegal weapons but I can`t think of one -unfortunately. 
Perhaps Clinton didn´t want to hurt all the civilians but he knew he would! I believe he just wanted to show his powers.
Lena



From: Stephen in Illinois
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:43:55 -0600
Subject: Iraq attack

The escalated violence in Iraq and the U.S. president's current problems with impeachment is coincidental. Saddam Hussein is not a stupid man he thinks since the president is having problems he can get away with murder literally. For Bill Clinton it is just good timing that he was trying to get away with that stuff. He has to take action and he doesn't mind that it takes some attention away from impeaching him.



From: Adrian in Illinois
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:44:48 -0600
Subject: Bombing of Iraq

I believe that the bombing of Iraq is bad. I think we should stop before we start another war. I think that we made our point clear. China France, and parts of Russia, don't agree with what we are doing.This could mean another world war. I don't think that we need another war. Some people think that this is the start of the apocalypse. I just think that we sould stop. 
Adrian 



From: Christopher in Illinois
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:45:30 -0600
Subject: The bombing of Iraq

I think that the bombing of Iraq was needed. Hussein should just give up and let the inspectors inspect the sites. If he had agreed before, this would have never happened. I'm sorry that innocent people have been dying. Who knows what would have happened if the biological weapons were used. If they were used many more people would have probably died. I hope this doesn't turn out to be a large scaled war. 



From: Simon in Illinois
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:46:10 -0600
Subject: Baghdad Bombing

I believe that the bombing is a diversion for President Clinton on the impeachment case. But also Iraq does give us a threat. Not letting the UN members in certain buildings which could be holding mass destruction weapons and chemicals weapons. Bombing Baghdad I believe is nessecary to show that the United States has the power. 
Simon 



From: Merima in Hamburg
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:19:40 +0100
Subject: to Simon - Baghdad Bombing

Simon,
I think, that you hadn't thought enough or right about the Baghdad-Bombing.
It is not the question who has the most power in the whole world. The President of the USA has not thought about the poor children who died. The children or the other people are not guilty for that what happened. I think that Hussein has to be punished and not the public. The President of the USA must find a another way to solve the United States problems with Iraq.
Merima



From: Carina and Shila in Hamburg
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:28:59 -0800
Subject: The bombardment of the Irak

Hi Markus !
We are two girls from Germany and we are 12 years old. We think that was not a good idea ,because the people in Irak are very poor and when they are bombarded them they have got nothing . We think that the president of the USA thinks that he is something better. But the Irak was wrong,too. Sadam Hussein did not want peace with the USA, so the USA had bombarded them. We think Sadam Hussein had to peace with the USA but Bill Clinton needn`t have bombarded the Irak immediately. He could think about it and speak with Sadam Hussein . 
Write us back our names are : Carina and Shila ! 



From: Cathy in Ohio
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:13:54 -0500
Subject: The bombardment of the Irak

Markus, 
I think our President made the right decision at the wrong time. We did need to bomb Iraq to show that we were not palying around, and that we meant business. But I also think he should have waited for the impeachment trail to be over. Now we are all against him more then we were before. I also think the only reason he decided to bomb Iraq when he did was to delay his impeachment hearing. He knows the houses are going to impeach him, and he got scared and wanted more time. He got it. He go less then 24 hours more to be the President. The United States needed to wait to bomb Iraq, at least until we were a more stable country. How can we tell another country to not follow it's leader, and to be more like us, if we are having problems of own. Well, that is how I feel on the whole bombing issue, and I hope that you understand what I am saying here. I have to go now, so bye.
Cathy 



From: Angel in Ohio
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:49:26 -0500
Subject: The bombardment of the Irak

Hello,
I believe that Clinton did this to take focus away from the impeachment hearings. He just can't bear the fact that he did something wrong and got caught. The democrats just wanted to delay the process until they got two more members. That would make them the majority party in the house. Bill is just an irresponsible person who wants the perks of his office, but is unwilling to accept the consequences when he screws up. I can't believe how blind the public is. Not seeing that this whole bombing thing was supposed to save his sorry behind. The only reason he hasn't been impeached, evicted, and punished is because he is a democrat. If this was a republican president and the all the circumstances were exactly the same, and the impeachment process had started at 10:00 this morning, he would have been out of office before I went on my lunch break. It's because of all these democrats who purposely procrastinate, plot together, and then turn around and call the republicans partisan. It's the best example of "the pot calling the kettle black" that I have ever seen in my entire life. Do you know what "censure" will do to punish the president? Absolutely nothing. It's just like a slap on the wrist. If he goes unpunished, it will be just like saying "the president is above the law". The democrats don't like playing by the rules that they set. Now they're being measured with the same stick they used on President Nixon( if you would like to know about that scandal, just write and ask). They're getting a taste of their own medicine and realizing that it tastes pretty rotten. 
As for Hussein, he's digging himself into a hole as well. He's been giving the U.N. trouble forever. But have you noticed that it never became a "serious emergency" until Clinton's scandal (boy aren't we suprised?!). But I don't believe that bombing innocent Iraqies is the answer. 
-Angel- 
P.S.If you have any questions about any thing I wrote, please write back. I will be more than happy to answer them. 



From: Angel in Ohio
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:47:01 -0500
Subject: The bombardment of the Irak

Markus,
I believe that Clinton bombed Iraq to delay the impeachment process. Anyway, I just got back from Christmas vacation, and the bombing is over. The trial is under way, and some other officials got caught. Now the Media is trying to take attention away from Clinton’s trial. But if you have been paying attention, the Media wants to make these people look guilty and kick them out of their offices. So you can clearly see that nobody is measuring these caught people with the same stick. Clinton says he has a personal life (which is true, you just can't be a criminal in your personal life), but he doesn't care about his fellows in crimes’ personal lives. 
Still, the bombing is over, and the president's trial is beginning. Now the Democrats don't want the Republicans to allow witnesses in this trial. Have you ever known a trial without witnesses?No. But the Democrats don't want to play by the rules they set. 
I hope you will write back to me.
-Angel- 

THE END 

<<back