Atlantic Views on the Iraq situation

OK, a change from spam is needed so lets see about a serious discussion on the views of Iraq situation. Its something that will effect all of us so it seems nice to see if we can share some opinions here

Personally I am against war in general. I have been a pacifist(sp?) all my life and won't change now. I think there is a lot of stuff been covered by Bush, and he has always been seen to me as a war monger. And here we have Blair who just seems to follow Bush blindly now.

Of course I don't mean to offend anyone if they feel strongly about this, but these are just views and a change from the spam

 

I'm against war and I choose not to pay attention to it. Bush is a moron and all he wants is a war, more votes etc... The Canadians should stay out of it.
Who's next? Good ol' Fidel?

That's my two cents...

 

Thought you might be against it with your sig

My dad and I was debating it earlier because he is for it because of comparisons to the start of World War II and Hitler that are been drawn.

I would of liked to take part in the peace march we had today down in London, anywhere near you guys have anything?

 

You know what hundreds of women did in Australia? They held anti war ralley while being naked.

 

I'd like to see that!

But really, Bush is pushing to hard. So what if they found nothing? Would that mean it's hidden, they will go in there no matter what Sudam does. I'm not saying that they've not commited crimes but what would a country do in their place?

 

I say we have a polar bear swim as a peace rally!

 

No war for oil or Bush family pride. That's the way I see it.

I also hope the British voters get rid of Bush's loyal puppy next election.

 

I really don't think an American Republican's opinions would be appreciated here, so I'm gonna be good and hold my tongue.

 

Why wouldn't it be appreciated?

(Unless, of course, you say something good about Bush )

Seriously though, if you have an opinion, state it. The JC is all for free speech (unless you say "WTF" apparently ...)

 

LOL...yes, I was poking around and got all of the WTF discussion...lol

Honestly? I support the war. I'm not sayin I believe violence is the answer, or that we should just go in and kill everyone, but I do believe Saddam is hiding something major, and that it needs to be taken care of. And if the United States are the only ones that are able to see it, and if we have to go in alone to solve it, than so be it. The ramifications of any action, war or not, are gonna be devestating. But early action, such as what the US is takin, could save the lives of millions. George Bush, Sr. should have taken care of Saddam back during Desert Storm. <----- spoken like a true American...

 

The thing is though, noone has produced any proof what-so-ever that there are any hidden weapons.

Up until Sept 11, Bush was constantly mocked for being an idiot. Then, when he started his "war on terrorism", people pretty much had to praise him. Then, when he failed to produce Osama's head on a platter, people went back to mocking his lack of intelligence. So now he needs a new target to get public opinion back on his side. So, along with the White House's personal propoganda network (aka "CNN"), he's turning back to Iraq, the enemies that dear old dad couldn't beat.

 

I believe that Saddam is developing weapons, but I believe that he has a right to develop said weapons. He has enemies, such as Israel and America, two nations that have in the past violated the sovereignty of other nations. Iraq, and all nations for that matter, have a right to defend themselves against hostile attack. Defence requires arms. Iraq's enemies are trying to deprive her of these arms. I do not believe Saddam intends to use these weapons for offensive purposes. He's not stupid. He learned his lesson in the Gulf War.

North Korea has nuclear weapons, and they have displayed an intent to use them, but America is dealing with that issue peacefully. Why? They don't have oil. Also, North Korea's president didn't try to kill Bush's daddy.

 

*sits back and waits for the day when Saddam releases his warfare on Canada for no good reason*

 

Trouble with going to war against a country like Iraq is that a whole bunch of innocent civilians die, and nothing is actually accomplished.

Wouldn't the world be better if everyone would just BE NICE TO PEOPLE?

 

Iraq, and all nations for that matter, have a right to defend themselves against hostile attack.

Ah, but there-in lies the paradox (kinda). True, all nations have a right to defend themselves, but, in the US gov'ts POV, that only allpies to contries they are friends with (or enimies of the US's enemies). Hell, in the 80's, the US gave weapons to & trained the Afgan people because they were at war with Russia! Kinda bit them in the ass, huh? The US gov't has a total double standard.

 

*sits back and waits for the day when Saddam releases his warfare on Canada for no good reason*

The odds of Saddam declaring war on ANYONE are about a billion to one. Sure, the UN is against aggression now, but they aren't stupid. The second Iraq makes any hostile moves, they'll bomb the **** out of it, and Saddam knows it. He's evil, sure, but he's an evil genious. He made the mistake once, of going to war with the US. He won't do it again.

 

DoY: Spoken like a true Ewok.

Now, I can't believe that the country that has enough "weapons of mass destruction" (as Propaganda . .. err CNN calls them) to destroy the world 30 times, and has used them in the past for terrorist-like actions, can run around whining and killing innocent people because someone else has some.

 

*is confused by Sarah's last post*

 

I said that on the JC before, but was basically e-stoned by a bunch of overly-patriotic Americans. The US has more nukes, etc, and the rest of the world combined, yet they go around telling other people to get rid of theirs.

As Lisa Simpson once said, "Dad, don't you see you're abusing your power like all vigilantes? I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police?"




EDIT: She means, the US has more "weapons of mass destruction" than anyone else, yet they go around telling people to get rid of theirs.

 

Exactly. America has many, many weapons of mass destruction, and they have used them in the past to murder innocent people. Yet they call anyone else who tries to possess the same weapons "evil". That is what Sarah meant, I believe.

I know Tammy is going to request proof of said murders, so here you are:

Hamburg, Germany
Dresden, Germany
Hiroshima, Japan
Nagasaki, Japan

The above cities were levelled by American weapons of mass destruction (atomic bombs in the case of the Japanese cities, firebombs in the case of the German ones) resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

America has created more terror than Osama Bin Laden could ever hope to create in a thousand lifetimes.

 

I think Hiroshima has got to be one of the worst forms of murder by the US.

 

Look, I dont actually post here, i lurk a little bit but i need to give my $0.02...

If the US had not used atomic weapons in WW2, the world today would almost certainly be a different, much worse place, and I'm pretty sure that my own country of Australia, and my city of Brisbane, would be under Japanese control.

 

Killing innocent people doesn't solve a thing.

 

The dropping of the nuke didn't end world war II, it was the second one, which was a hell of a murder rate. They should of targeted political leaders of the time not the innocents of a city. I do not think that Japan would of held up to long either since the war in Europe had ended, they had no allies. Even with the stubborn pride they have they are not stupid to have carried on longer.

I am in complete agreement with AT60 and WK here, espically considering the North Korea situation. The best thing that the UN could do would be to send in peace keeping troops more then anything.

And as for the loyal sidekick of Bush, god after this crap I hope he will be voted out. Blair wasn't to bad before, but his unquestioning blindly following Bush routine is tiresome. I voted for Liberal Democrats anyway, the 3rd party that don't seem to have a chance of getting in but are the best and honest. Blair have been scaremongering here also, increasing army presence at airports, ok better to be safe then sorry but why do we need a tank? What does he think will come? An invasion force?

And as for finding a grenade at Heathrow, that was bad of course, but terriosm will always exsist, there will always be someone against politcal ideas that will take it to violence, and the UK have been dealing with it for many years. The IRA have killed many innocent in this country, yet Sien Fienn(sp?), the political side of IRA, have always recieved a lot of backing from America, bit hypocritical maybe