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

As I said before: the UN's purpose is to promote and achieve peace, not start a mass invasion. I think that the UN has not failed at all.

The United Nations is only to go to war when absolutely necessary, and they have determined that it is not abosolutely necessary. The United States of America will prove to be, itself, a rogue state by ignoring the UN's decisions.

 

To me, there isn't a question about it. Without the UN, there should be no war, IMO.

Tayschrenn

 

"And Palestinians are killing innocent Israelis in cowardly suicide bombings"
Eye for an eye... IMO, they're all idiots.

"The United States of America will prove to be, itself, a rogue state by ignoring the UN's decisions."
I concur with the honorable delegate Darth_Guy!

 

War??? What century is it people? How much longer will it take? We must start living without feeling the the thurst for blood when we have been wronged. I hope oneday people will find a way to resolve a political conflict without slaughter. War is disgusting.

 

If you say that "War is disgusting." why then do you have your signature saying "join the navy" ?
That seems a bit contraditory to me.
?

 

Yes, I would support the future war against Iraq with or without UN approval. It is not going to be just the US and Britain going after Saddam, the following nations have expressed support for the removal of Saddam:
Australia, Spain, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Lithuania, Slovakia, Denmark, Czech Republic, Quatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Albania, Kuwait, Israel, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Macedonia, Croatia, and Japan

 

Yes

I support the US.

 

yes. if the U.N. can't enforce it's own resolution, then the U.S. will.


DarthTunick,
i California!

 

You warmongers sicken me.

 

Real nice of you to call us names.

 

You're welcome. Those posts really make me feel sad.
Don't take it personally, it's not supposed to be taken like that. Our opinions on this subject are just so different. I don't dislike or hate You people, just Your attitude. On this particular subject.

 

Despite my aggrievances against Bush and the US, I would say YES.

I'm afraid to say the UN is becoming more like the League Of Nations was and its losing more credibility day by day. Its full of beaucratic red tape and its no means to run international matters.

Its always the US and Britain that left to do something to make the world a better place, so why should we stop now?

Iraq may not be a threat to the US or the UK but they can still harm their neighbours and we aren't going to let them do so.

Oh and by the way, after the NATO debacle what short memories the French and Germans have. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Yes.

7000 years of recorded human history should have taught us by now that no matter how much the majority may want peace, there's always going to be a brutal dictator that doesn't care. We can't reason with a man like Saddam. He's not going to suddenly wake up one morning and go: "you know what? I've been wrong all along."

we need to be realistic here. The UN is meaningless if all its going to do is say: "just one more time, just one more time, just one more time."

Thanks to the League of Nations, we got World War II.

You know, if the US were to back down now, and just leave Iraq alone, everyone in the world would jump all over us as soon as Saddam launches his next attack on one of his neighbors.

I'd also like to point out that the majority of European nations support us now.

At this point, I wouldn't be adverse to a war against France.

 

I don't think that the best way to gain peace is through war. Too many civilians will suffer if the USA attacks Iraq. And I have to ask why it is allowed to USA to create nuclear bombs etc. but to other countries it is forbidden? What makes USA so much important to humankind that it can decide what to do on Earth?

 

Drk Father1: Out of curiousity, why would you not be adverse for the US to go to war against France?

Darth_Weirdo, that's just what I'd like to know.

 

Darth_Weirdo:

How many civilians die each day because of Saddam's destructive rule? Yes, civilians will die in any war we wage, but the fact is, is that those people are garaunteed a hopless death if we do nothing. If we act, Iraq can get back on its feet, and those civilians won't die.

And the U.S. is acting in the interests of the UN. It is the UN's Resolutions that Iraq is disobeying, and we want to show the world that the UN's Resolutions can't be defied.

 

"And the U.S. is acting in the interests of the UN. "
"we want to show the world that the UN's Resolutions can't be defied. "
These words from a person, who wants to attack Iraq even without UN approval = UN says "NO" to attack...
So who's defying UN decisions?

 

These words from a person, who wants to attack Iraq even without UN approval = UN says "NO" to attack...
So who's defying UN decisions?

There aren't any decisions that the U.S. is defying, only indecision. If they want to bring a resolution against the U.S., let them.

If the UN lets Saddam off the hook (again), then every two-bit dictator will (rightly) believe that they can get away with anything they want to.

The UN is giving Iraq its tacit consent, that is, they're giving Saddam permission through inaction.

 

No. I do not support a US-led war under any situation whatsoever.

 

Many of the European countries besides the cowardly French and the anti-American German government (e.g., Schroder) are solidly behind us.

I hardly call 17 to be "many" of Europe, it's not even the majority.
Besides calling other countries names? How mature.

Besides more then half of the population of each European country are against the war without UN support.

My answer is No, however I will support a war with UN support.

 

Well, Fortytwo, I think France seems to have forgotten how the world works. If they want to sit back and be pacifists, then I say they deserve it the next time they get conquered. Instead of treating the rest of the world with disdain and derision, they should stand up and show some backbone. If they want to stand in our way, then screw 'em, they're no longer an ally. Our Esteemed President said it best when he said: " You're either with us, or your against us."

I hear alot of Europeans expressing that they have suffered through wars and feel that more war isn't the answer, but one of the reasons they've suffered through so many is the fact that they've allowed so many dictators to come to power and brutalize their neighbors.

Its called being proactive instead of reactive. The best defense is a good offense.

Here's what's going to happen if we pulled all our troops back today and gave up on Saddam and said, "okay, we quit, we'll leave you alone now.": In about 5 more years, Saddam launches an attack on another country in the Middle East, or worse, launches an attack on another country much further away, using biological, chemical, or a nuclear weapon. After thousands of lives are lost the rest of the world cries out to the USA: "Why didn't you do something? This is all your fault."

Let's really analyze who's against us going to war:

Russia: our old adversaries. Their communist regime failed, and although they are now an ally, I'm sure they'd love to see us get a bloody nose.

China: probably our biggest rival left in the world. They'd love to see us dishonored or weakened in any way.

Germany: We've kicked their butts in two wars now. Sure they wouldn't mind some revenge.

France: We've rescued them from two wars now. Must feel pretty ashamed, and tired of hearing Americans remind them of that fact, so they'd love to see us fail.

Now, tell me why we should take any stock in the protests of any of those four?

 

Darth Weirdo:

Let's see, the United States is the world's only Super Power left. We have the strongest military in the world, and the resolve to use it when necessary. We've never threatened one of our neighbors. We're not an imperialistic nation. We don't torture or oppress anyone.

I think we have every right to possess nuclear weapons. And believe me, if you'd rather Saddam have them, I'm sure you're more than welcome to go live in Iraq. Or North Korea, or any other backwards, brutal, tyrannical nation. Because yeah, it'd be great if the US didn't have any nuclear weapons. The world would really be a safer place huh?

 

I don't mean to sound like a warmonger, but I'm very passionate on this issue.

War isn't pretty. Its not a nice thing. But sometimes its a just and necessary thing.

I don't want to just sit back and watch the world go to hell because some people think that warm fuzzy feelings will somehow miraculously change all the evil people in the world.

 

I do not condem it, nor will I support it. does that make any sense? lol

 

"This nation is now the most powerfull force in the world, I suggest we use it."