The
BBC News World Edition February 26, 2003
War on
Iraq: For and
against
Click
here to listen to Harold Pinter's poem and statement
Click
here to listen to Arnold Wesker's statement
Vocabulary:
| various the case for war Harold Pinter The French Lieutenant's Woman Hyde Park to make a moral case for to wage (a war) for the sake of apparently couldn't care less about Iraqi sustained brutal sanctions to deprive essential to burst to suck to polish skulls from the effects of depleted uranium Gulf War to show total indifference to to be on (in) the cards |
mass murder to rescue dictator to destroy infrastructure an insult to the intelligence to have a moral position whatsoever impending weapons of mass destruction oil arms manufacturers beneficiaries to make a giant stride towards + gerund resources full spectrum dominance to coin (a word, term) Arnold Wesker author play Chicken Soup with Barley Longitude Saddam Hussein to glow with pride and pleasure to say nothing of |
relief tyrant to usurp sovereignty to invade to turn s.t. upside down to put into disarray NATO doorstep to waste stock market in ages to falter intellectuals to sign petitions to perpetuate tyrannical oppression Baghdad human shields military attack Osama bin Laden suicide attacks enemy oppressors 'he never had it so good' |
This
BBC feature, broadcast over "The World Today" on February 26, 2003,
offers two opposing viewpoints on the current world situation regarding Iraq,
and the U.S. and its supporters. The speakers are Harold
Pinter and Arnold
Wesker, both well known writers. First, follow the links and skim
the biography of each for the most important parts. Both writers are Jewish.
Note the war experiences of Pinter's childhood that have certainly contributed
to his point of view. Wesker once served in the British Royal Air Force, but
has long expressed strongly leftist (socialist/communist) political views and
was once imprisoned for anti-nuclear activities.
Next, look over the vocabulary words, and look
up in the dictionary the ones you don't know. Then listen to each recording
carefully. First just try to understand the content thoroughly; then evaluate
each statement critically. Ask yourself the following questions, and
compose your answers into a short essay:
1. What are the main points of each speaker?
2. How does each speaker support his arguments?
3. How much does each argument depend on objective facts and how much
on emotional appeal?
4. How does each speaker select the facts he offers in his statement?
5. How does each speaker use emotional appeal to convince his listeners of his
point of view?
6. Did hearing these two viewpoints influence your own views on this issue?
If so, how?