Can we justify war on Iraq???

[chesters1]

we seem to have now explored all the sidelines in the issue.

the side from mr bush in his gung ho lets go alone and bu**er the un (and the possibility of us being dragged along)

my version of saddams reasoning and "monkey see monkey do"

chesters1 "hang em hi " version

the so called "flawed history" is in fact fact ,nearly all countries have had their own versions of saddams crimes ,all have invaded other countries ,most in some way have tried their best to exterminate a foe using weapons of mass distruction

,ethnic cleansing was quite popular in the past in the so called civilised countries ,beside tasmania ,jews were forbidden (under threat of death) to live in england for almost 400 years ,religeous ferver was prevelent ,we tried to cleanse catholics ,catholics waged war on england the only flaw in this it happened over the last thousand years ,not in saddams reign.

as stated in mr annans ? statement today the answer IS the isreali/palestine problem ,removing saddam will not take the problem away just give isreal a little more room to breath.

mr bush`s speach was very good ,no mention of the past gung ho stuff ,but instead cleverly manouvered the un into a empass over its own mandates ,mr bush clearly stated the signed agreements and how they were broken and insisted the un take action over them.

if the un take on iraq for breaking the rules then surely other broken mandates should be enforced in the case of other countries that have also broken them .if this is not the case then the arab world will still see saddam as being picked on.

i dont think there is much evidence to back up mr bushes facts ,people who have defected will probably not tell the truth i.e

"hey mr defector ,tell us about that creep saddam"

i would hardly think he would respond with

"mr saddams a great guy ,we often had him and the kids over for tea ,those nice curds up north bought some chemicals from us and mixed them up wrong and gassed themselves ,women are reveared and tales of torture are western bullshine"

implausable yes, it would be a case of the first plane back home ,its in the intrest of the defector to provide incriminating stuff the more he gives the more the chance of being given western goodies it matters not a jot to him if its true or untrue the more he speaks the more he gets.

the pictures showing iraq rebuilding its resourses are misinterpritations(or damn lies) (the picture of the nuclear power station? being rebuilt was infact proved wrong by news men ) saddam is not a fool he knows america has eyes in the sky ,if he`s building its under the cities not in the middle of the dessert for all to see,we cannot blindly raise to the ground complete cities to get to them ,the lives lost would be crinimal.

harbouring terrorists ,i expect all countries do we have quite a few ,but do to the fact that its against the human rights act to send them to a country with the death penalty so we`re stuck with them untill further notice or decide themselves to leave

mr idi amin who ethnicly cleansed all indians from his country and committed horrific acts on his own people now lives (or did)in splendor and wealth (most of it aid money) in saudi arabia .show me a poor leader of a poor country :mad: that mugabe dont wear hessian his suits are saville row.

so we wait for the un to speak ,if they say go in then they have the rest of the world behind them if bush goes in then he is acting on his own and probably illegally ,we wait and see

[Simon Newbould]

catchaplenty:

 

Al Qaeda claim responsibility, and vow to continue doing similar things in future until all 'infidels' (American troops stationed to deter another Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) are removed from the 'Holy Land' (i.e. Saudi Arabia)

 

What would you do about it then? Apart from standing about criticizing of course.

Dave

Al Qaeda claimed responsibilty for the last Septembers attacks on the States... According to Shrub and Blair we in the west have absolutely NO evidence that Iraq was involved in those attacks..

 

It may well be the case that Iraq are developing WMD's and may even have the delivery systems to use them..... "We" by our own admission don't actually know that though.. If evidence was produced to show that they actually had this capability and were planning to use it against us then fine, go and bomb the bastards... However, there is NO evidence....

 

What worries me is that Shrub and Blair seem to be tying Iraq into the WTC atrocity with absolutely no evidence... the media appear to have fallen for it as do many other people...

 

If this war is against terrorism and those countries that support and harbour terrorists then why attack Iraq? No evidence exists to suggest that they had/have anything to do with Al Qaeda..

 

Why can't our governments be honest and admit the real reason for an attack on Iraq, it certainly ain't the "war on terrorism"!

 

Simon

[PH]

Hear the news this morning? Iraq has given in to arms inspectors, which stops the US from bombing the s*** out of them.

But is this just a stalling tactic or is this the end of all this Iraq business? Only time will tell.

[Simon Newbould]

PH:

Iraq has given in to arms inspectors,

Seems that Shrub is intent on war though....

 

"The White House has dismissed Iraq's offer to let weapons inspectors return there unconditionally".

[poledark]

Well it looks like American diplomacy has won again, that and pressure of arms of course.

 

Pressure like this, though not so outspoken, brought about the end of the cold war and has allowed us to sleep safely at night.

 

Of course we could have given in to the wimps that wanted to disarm (ban the bomb!) we could also have given in and "appeased" Hitler.

 

Safety in strength is the only answer until mankind(and womankind, remember the Falklands) learn to rid society of those who threaten the peace and safety of others.

 

Bush and Blair have achieved a great diplomatic victory, not helped by those who have not one real reason to hate them.

It would seem to be the perceived wisdom in certain quarters that Bush is a fool, all I can say is that he certainly fooled Saddam, and some of the posters on here

 

Den

 

Den

[Baldrick]

The fact that the UN are now likely to issue a new resolution & that other countries are now reversing their stance, notably Saudi Arabia & Russia, has forced Iraq into indicating that they will allow weapons inspections can only be good, but I wonder.....

 

Should Iraq allow the inspectors return (remains to be seen) what then?

 

One of George Bush's publicly stated primary aims (or THE primary aim) was to remove Saddam Hussein from power... my personal view is that the WMD issue was the excuse to achieve that aim.

 

Now, supposing Saddam does allow weapons inspections, & he fulfils all the UN resolutions, how does George W justify the pusuit of the stated goal?

 

After all, Saddam will still be in power (albeit less of a threat), he will still control Iraq's vast oil wealth & he'll still be a thorn in the west's side!

 

We know Dubya wants him out, cos he's said so, but Saddam will still be there putting 2 fingers up to the US!

 

Who's fooling Who?

[PH]

quote:

---

We know Dubya wants him out, cos he's said so, but Saddam will still be there putting 2 fingers up to the US!

 

Who's fooling Who?

---

Yip. Iraq are experts at this cat and mouse game. It all seems unconditional at this stage but when the arms inspector actually arrive at a site it could be different story.

[Jim Roper]

poledark:

 

 Safety in strength is the only answer until mankind(and womankind, remember the Falklands) learn to rid society of those who threaten the peace and safety of others.

PEACE! Through Superior Firepower!

 

Or is it Assured Mutual Destruction? (AMD, not the chip maker).

 

Jim Roper

 

http://www.searchlineuk.com/FishList.htm

http://www.march-info.org

[poledark]

Yes Jim, has there ever been any other way??

 

Den

[Chris Goddard]

Just had to think very long and very hard about this one and I have not read the previous 78 posts so as not to influence my decsion at all.

 

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The bleeding heart liberals have had it all there own way for far too long in my book!!

 

Chris :mad: :mad: :mad: