Do you support a US led war on Iraq without UN approval?

"We've never threatened one of our neighbors"
The invasion of Haiti a few years ago? That was also a regime change and included some threatening before the action, if I recall correctly.
I don't think anyone should possess Nukes. Not 'super powers' or anyone else. North Korea included.

 

the little farts at the "UN" have no power!

 

No way. It would be insane to engage in a war with Iraq if the UN were opposed. I don't want this war to happen at all but I will support my country regardless.

 

Nope.

 

No. The US should respect the UN and not think that it is above it and able to just go ahead and do what it wants even if the UN doesn't agree. Give me conclusive proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and I may change my mind.

 

Before I begin, The United States Military and George W Bush jr. are not one and the same. Just because someone chooses to voice their opposition to an illegal action by a corrupt government, does not mean they in anyway condemn said military troops, on the contrary helping to bring said military troops home before they get in harms way is the best way to support them.

No, I have so many reason I'm against this conflict with Iraq or any war.

1) George Bush jr. At best I find his motives to be questionable, at worst treasonous. I believe this person, I can not even bring myself to call him a man, is completely devoid of honor. He is an opportunistic, self serving charlatan, who makes me feel shame at being an American.

2) The expense. Our economy is at a twelve year low, our country has gone from a budget surplus to the brink of a full blown depression. We should not be wasting resources abroad, while so many at home are without basic necessities.

3) The hypocrisy. Everywhere I hear about human-rights violations in Iraq, but nothing is said about violation against the Palestinians in the Israeli occupied territories.

4) The redundancy. I?ve been there, done that.

5) The alternatives. I do not believe a sincere effort to find a diplomatic solution has been made. War makes for more entertaining headlines, and distracts the populace from the more pressing issues.

6) The spiritual. What would Jesus do? For that answer, I suggest listening to your heart, and if you have a Bible handy, I like Matthew 5.


Cant we all just get along?

 

Yes.
The UN is becoming a stumbling block in our path, preventing us from fighting terrorism, taking down an evil dictator, and liberating the Iraqi people. They refuse to listen to Colin Powell and the presentation he gave, showing how dangerous Saddam Hussein is.
We have enough support already. 40 European states; almost all of the NATO nations. We have the support we need; the UN is not necessary.
Sometimes the only way to peace is through war.

 

You got the support of those governments, but not the support of the majority of the People.
Where did you get that 40 European nations?

 

If you don't value the support of the nations' governments, than you can't possibly value the UN. What's the government? A "few" people making decisions for the whole. What's the UN delegation of that government? Even fewer people making decisions for that whole. If you are going to refer to the ruling minority v. the majority, the government and the UN delegations have the same value.
Tae

 

I support the war on Iraq becasue they have already been making weapons and It well help the peace in the middle east!

 

No, my support is for the UN's decision, not the US.

 

I do, because I have friends and family in the millitary over there. I am supportive of them, and my country, and my country's leaders. I think what Saddam is doing in Iraq is horribly wrong, adn although I wish there was a better solution that didn't involve the loss of soliders lives (not just american, but all). I wish we had UN support, but it just didn't work out that way.

 

"It well help the peace in the middle east!"
I doubt that.
What I've heard from the TV in past few days, arabs are infuriated by this war and death toll of civilians.
It doesn't help with bringing peace anywhere. IMHO.

"If you are going to refer to the ruling minority v. the majority"
No. I just want to say that majority of the world does not support war against Iraq.
Rummy said the other day in his press conference, that the coalition consists of 45 nations and 1.8 billion people. Bull****.
There aren't 1 800 000 000 people saying 'yes, destroy Saddam and his regime of terror'. Can't argue about the number of nations, but I hate this twisting of numbers.
I don't like Iraqi propaganda any more than US propaganda, both are unreliable.

 

Yes, the UN is useless.

The idea of the UN is great and I would support the UN if it were effective. But it's just a bickering 'committee' and we all know how effective committees are.

 

Yes. The fact that Iraq has already fired banned weapons doesn't bode well for their case, in that they do not have chemical or biological weapons, and this with a tyrant like Saddam behind the wheel is disturbing.

 

I fully support President Bush's decision. I am not in favor of war, but I am even less in favor of a madman in power possessing weapons of mass destruction.

I do wish the diplomatic route had worked, but it didn't. And to all those who want concrete evidence that Saddam has WMD: with what would you be satisfied? Will you have enough evidence after he has used them?

 

Yep, the UN cares little for the suffering of others, instead it would of just slapped another resloution on Baghdad, added more sanctions, killed more people, patted itself on the back and said "Job well done ol' chap"

The Truth If You Choose to Hear it

This man asks a very simple question that I have yet to hear answered. How will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? Theres only one real answer.

 

I'll answer you:
Q:"How will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? "
A: It won't.

"Yes, the UN is useless."
It's useless, because it didn't support Bush's crusade?
What if Russia wanted to replace some US-frienly country's leadership via UN sec. council, got rejected, but attacked anyway?
A stupid example, I agree with you, but the idea is same in Iraq.

 

Against.

 

It's useless, because it didn't support Bush's crusade?

No, it is useless because it does not back up it's own resolutions when they are broken.

 

What DarthBurns said. It doesn't enforce it's own resolutions and neither does it even remotely have power to do anything about a nation that goes off on it's own (regardless of whether that nation is right or not).

 

I totally support the US in this war against Iraq, but I'm disappointed in Canada's (my home country) failure to support the US.

 

I sat on the fence during the build up but now that the fighting has started to do support it. I wish that this had just been taken care of back in ?92.

 

Absolutely. I lived in the Middle East for eight years, and can say definitively that Saddam would happily have his nation turned into glass if he thought he could seriously hurt the USA in the process. If we don't get him now, he will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, come after us.

About the UN in general: "League of Nations". Both the UN and the LoN had basically no real power, just a lot of talk.

 

WOW! This is a really close vote.


I think that countries that have Nukes already are pretty much left alone. Nobody is really inspecting Russia, China, Britian, France, Isreal, France. The goal is to keep new nukes from being made in countries that don't already have them. That's why we aren't happy with India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc. But we aren't in those countries either, yet. As far as Palistine and Isreal, thy have been fighting since the beginning of time and will always fight. Isreal should get out of the occupied areas and allow Palistine to exsist as a state. That probally will not stop all the bombings, but if Isreal and others help rebuild Palistine, perhaps some level of peace and friendships can start between the two people.