# War in Iraq, for or against?



## stowexile (May 13, 2002)

I can't believe nobody has posted this yet but here goes (unless I missed it that is). As it looks like we will be going to War with Iraq, who here supports it and who is against it?

To start the ball rolling I have to say I'm against. I don't like Saddam or his regime but I can't see the justification for killing up to 1/2 million innocent people(UN figures) in order to do that. If the UK / US want to get rid of Saddam, send in an assassin to do the job. However they won't do that as this is against international law (unlike killing 1/2 million innocent people) and Bush and Tony would be shiÂ£Â£ing themselves that somebody would retaliate in kind (happy to risk the lives of our forces but not their own).

Anyway, that's my point of view, what about yours?


----------



## Major Audi Parts Guru (May 7, 2002)

One way or another,Saddam Hussein needs to be taken out and the only force capable of doing this is the SAS.
As for the war,well i can see it from both sides,however i can't see 1/2 a million people getting killed if it happens


----------



## Andy_TT (Jun 5, 2002)

We should just get on with it, kick his sorry ass and let the economy recover.

[smiley=behead.gif] [smiley=klingon.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]

All this uncertainty is killing our investments / pensions / endowments etc.

The longer we wait the more he is able to sell and hide. Although I do not believe direct connections with Bin Laden I'm sure he would not think twice about selling or supplying any country / organization with a common enemy.

Anyway we really do not want to give Tony / Bubba the chance to say "I told you so......."


----------



## Dr_Parmar (May 10, 2002)

i agree with andy!

its dragging on a bit now,

get in there, remove him by force and get some SANE people in there to manage the country!

just stop talking and discussing and blah blah blah all the time!

ACTION!


----------



## donny (Sep 5, 2003)

All you have to do to find him is got to the hotel in Bagdad which all the world press are staying in. Probably the downstair bar and he's the guy in the corner(with hat and sunglasses) where he will stay untill any war is over as he wont bomb the place and the allies (all two of them) wont either. ;D


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

War doesn't always help.

The losers will be us. Always be afraid of terrorist attacks because the war will create more terrorists.

We all suffer at present, investments are down, fuel is going up and we can die riding the tube by poisonous gases.

In any case the way the UN is split at the moment it can only be bad news. The economy in limbo and our personal safety is compromised. The future doesn't look promising!!


----------



## donny (Sep 5, 2003)

Shouldnt have stopped the last time (waste of time and effort which achieved F all (IMHO)) get in there and take the Basta#d out along with the rest of those concerned ;D

Peace Rallies Bollox Full of fing do gooders and clingons ;D


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2003)

So..all you pro-war people will be signing up to get on the front line, will you?

Or are you happy that some other person will die for you to continue to get cheap petrol, oh and your shares might recover?

War results when diplomacy and discussion fails.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Nicholas,

This war will be a long distance one like the one in Bosnia...lots of cruise missiles and bombing.


----------



## donny (Sep 5, 2003)

> So..all you pro-war people will be signing up to get on the front line, will you?
> 
> Or are you happy that some other person will die for you to continue to get cheap petrol, oh and your shares might recover?
> 
> War results when diplomacy and discussion fails.


Was there on the last one doing my bit! so I do think I am entitled to sound off a bit And would return if push came to shove  Â Â ;D

But Im quite happy to let it be an aerial bombardment and all our forces stay well back...remember.. friendly fire isin't....


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Ok kick his ass then the koreans oh and lets not forget Zimbabwe but where will it stop.
Stop the sactions so the people can become strong and doit for them selves


----------



## dazzler (Feb 12, 2003)

Thumbs up to all the members who went on marches on Saturday. Like me I am sure war is required in certain instances. But unless there is true proof that we are all in danger, why kill thousands of inocent people when we only need to assasinate a few.


----------



## stowexile (May 13, 2002)

The problem with this war is that we will be the aggressors. Unlike before, Saddam hasn't invaded anyone. Our governments tell us that they are trying to prevent him from attacking people in the future, but that's like a policeman shooting somebody in the head because they may have a gun. It's both illegal and morally dubious.
Using the argument about the oppressed Iraqi people is also a convenient excuse. If they are so worried about the population, why are they prepared to risk killing more. Also, if the prevention of the killing of innocents by a government is of such high importance, where were they during the Rwandan genocide (that's land locked, African, no oil or any other natural resources of significance Rwanda)?
I'm not a "no war for any reason" activist but I feel very uncomfortable at the UK playing the role of the aggressor.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Thumbs up to all the members who went on marches on Saturday. Like me I am sure war is required in certain instances. But unless there is true proof that we are all in danger, why kill thousands of inocent people when we only need to assasinate a few.


What right do we have to see the evidence? We have none, as it comprimises national security. If our government decides it is just to attack a country, it is our job to do so. If everybody questions their justification, it does nothing but undermine their authority, & the chain of command. Soldiers do not question their commanding officers. If they did, an army would not work...

Saddam has murdered his own people, & he would kill more if/when capable. He must be removed from power, whatever the cost. The moment he is removed from power, sanctions etc can be lifted. The Iraqi people might then have a fair chance at life, & not be flooding our country as asylum seekers...


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Thumbs up to all the members who went on marches on Saturday. Like me I am sure war is required in certain instances. But unless there is true proof that we are all in danger, why kill thousands of inocent people when we only need to assasinate a few.


What right do we have to see the evidence? We have none, as it comprimises national security. If our government decides it is just to attack a country, it is our job to do so. If everybody questions their justification, it does nothing but undermine their authority, & the chain of command. Soldiers do not question their commanding officers. If they did, an army would not work...

Saddam has murdered his own people, & he would kill more if/when capable. He must be removed from power, whatever the cost. The moment he is removed from power, sanctions etc can be lifted. The Iraqi people might then have a fair chance at life, & not be flooding our country as asylum seekers...


----------



## stowexile (May 13, 2002)

> "If everybody questions their justification, it does nothing but undermine their authority, & the chain of command. Soldiers do not question their commanding officers. If they did, an army would not work... "


I think you can only use that arguement up to a point. Blindly believeing what you are told on trust is a dangerous path to follow.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that in the case of a war on Iraq that soldiers should not obey orders, but as voting member of the public we have a right to debate and question.


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

Tend to think that the fact that 56 million people didn't bother to go to the Stop the War march shows the general level of apathy......

And before someone says 1 million people went, remember that they estimate 5 million people go fishing every weekend and every November 2 million motorsport fans flock to the forests to watch the Network Q rally.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

We do indeed, but we do not have rights to be given all information regarding the issue. If the information they deem 'safe' to disclose does not justify their action, but they say they have sufficient information of a classified nature, then I think we should believe them.

Eventually, such records are declassified, & at that point if they were lying they could be brought before a judge.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Tend to think that the fact that 56 million people didn't bother to go to the Stop the War march shows the general level of apathy......
> 
> And before someone says 1 million people went, remember that they estimate 5 million people go fishing every weekend and every November 2 million motorsport fans flock to the forests to watch the Network Q rally.


lol, I like that statistic! More people went fishing than went to the march. I think Blair should use that as evidence the nation supports him


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Small war now beat's a big war later


----------



## stowexile (May 13, 2002)

Alternatively small war now could destabilise a region and lead to a much bigger war later on [smiley=end.gif]

OK I don't think the "end of the world is nigh" but I am worried about the knock on effects of an attack on Iraq without UN backing


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Can not see much knock-on effect after all who likes the guy all surrounding states arround him will hardly shed a tear for him.


----------



## stowexile (May 13, 2002)

Its not the other heads of state I'm worred about (I agree that none of them would be displeased). It's more the general Arab population who see Sadam as a hero who stands up against the west.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

My biggest fear is that we cannot close our borders, because it would probably be against EU nonsense legislation .

If we could close our borders, at least we would be able to slowly remove all terrorists. With open borders, they are free to come in whenever they choose, & I imagine, for every 1 we prosecute, another 10 waltz in...


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Whatever anybody say's it's going to happen within the next 14 days!


----------



## FS_CRAM_225 (Jun 25, 2002)

I hope ( rather unrealisticly ) there is no war, the knock on effects here in Saudi and elsewhere in the region are impossible to guage, but they wont be good thats for sure.

America and the Wests indifference to those of differing cultures and views has alienated even those here that would consider them allies just 10 or 15 years ago.

Bush talks about defeating terrorism but he is doing exaclty what Bin Laden wanted all along.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

In my opinion the foreign policy of the USA needs to be applied in a more equitable fashion in the region, in order to have a positive outcome for relationships between the west and Arab states.

What applies to Saddam Hussain and Iraq should apply to Sharon and Israel, both are in material breach of UN security council resolutions and should be punished.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/commen ... 76,00.html

^Out^kast^


----------

