Should the US & UK launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq?

As my first poll here at FanForce, I thought I would choose something, which is probably foremost in our minds. I would be interested in your thoughts and here is my opinion:


The first thing I would like to say is that I am not anti-American, just anti-George Bush! The man is a fool to put it bluntly. He does not have the charisma or stature to be a world leader. And quite frankly, the man scares me.

All this belligerant talk about Iraq is "sleepwalking" us into a war. Why do we have to attack Iraq? What purpose will it serve in the end?

Already it seems Tony Blair has committed British troops to any conflict by stating that the UK is ready to pay a "blood price." It seems that Mr Blair is quite happy to go hand in hand with Mr Bush into the sunset of nuclear oblivion.

Returning to one of my questions: why attack Iraq? Yes, exactly that; why? What evidence do we have of these weapons of mass destruction? I, as a member of the British public, certainly haven't seen anyway. I have not been presented with any compelling arguments as to why Iraq is such a grevious threat to international security. All I hear is endless talk of war by the US and downright arrogance on their part.

And what purpose will it serve in the end? IF Saddam Hussein is removed, who will rise to replace him? What viable alternative is there? With the Arab world opposed to any strike against Iraq, any pre-emptive action, would provide terrorists with more justification to attack the West. It could also plunge the Middle East into a bloody war.

My greatest concern is that it could lead to doomsday, with the launch of nuclear weapons and once we start down that parth, there will be no end until the annihaltion of mankind.

Any pre-emptive strike against Iraq is wrong. Any strike has to be agreed by the UN Security Council and only when all diplomatic options have been fully explored and exhausted.

Furthermore, Parliament should be recalled and any decision to commit British troops should only be done with their consent. It is time that the elected representatives of the people had an opportunity to debate these issues.

If the US and UK go it alone and attack Iraq, then are we no better than the terrorists who carried out the 11th September attack? I don't think so.

To me, we have far more to fear from Mr Bush that Mr Hussein. Only one of them we know for definite has enough nuclear arsenal to destroy the world several times over and it is he who is threatening war.

 

I cannot vote as I am undecided.

I seem to be stuck between the yes camp and no camp.

This is my opinion.

Saddam, it is agreed is a very dangerous man and the world would be a better place if he wasn't around or running a country. However, The US (and UK) cannot go it alone against the popular opinion of the international community.

This has potential to explode the Middle East. And Saddam will do all in his power to make this happen and further the fanatical hatred of the West by many in the region. The Bush administration is adding to this and it seems that it has learnt little from 9/11. It also seems to me that 9/11 is being used as a convenient excuse to finish a job that should have been done by Bush Snr. One of the main reasons many in the region hate the US is because of its arrogant approach to foriegn policy - which is still going on. And its insistance in supporting Isreal come what may.

While I suspect that the remaining permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, China and France) are more concerned with the economic and business aspect of the effect of an invasion rather than the moral argument they must be listened to. The UN must be used otherwise it sends a strong message to other nations.

This will also open up some interesting questions for the US. Does she invade all potentially agrressive nations looking to develop weapons of mass destruction?

While I think that the world should not sit around and wait. And I understand the frustration of leaders who see nothing being done. Bush & Blair cannot act alone.

On a side note: Blair is risking a lot by standing firm. He lacks support in his party, the unions, the public and the international community. Bush isn't risking much as he wasn't really respected anyway. Blair, whether it be true or not, is seen by many as Bush's little messenger boy. If this is really important we must ask ourselves why has not the US President flown to Moscow or Paris to speak to the world leaders in person? Because he has little boy Blair to do that!

Very worrying.

 

Hell no!!!

 

Can we stop talking about it ?

 

The US wanting control of Iraq's oil reserves, is the reason I reckon they want to go in.

If Mo Mowlam (reported in Daily Mail) is correct, I didn't think far enough ahead.
The US may be getting forces into the area so they can take over Saudi Arabia's oil reserves if it looks like falling into the hands of a "militant" Muslim government.

All that aside, since Iraq is the only Arab country out there that Israel can't take, maybe Saddam needs his weapons for self-defense.

 

D_A I absolutely agree with what you say. It is encouraging that I am not alone in my opinion. I was beginning to wonder whether everyone apart from me was in favour of war, the way that Bush & Blair have been talking.

DA6, I see no reason to stop talking about this. The events happening now could potentially be the most defining of our lives. It is important we talk about it and people share their views.

 

Nope, it wont solve anything and we wont achieve world peace by bombing Iraq.
Saddam is a bad man but he is hardly a major threat. He is in control of a 3rd world country not a major world power.

 

EDITTED:
TO AVOID A MISUNDERSTANDING

 

DA6 - what???? I can't understand a word of what you just posted!!

 

I don't think they should go in, at least not alone. I think if they go in now it may turn into the third world war

 

DA6 - it looks as if that is definitely not happening This is politics - not religion. Different subjects they are. No one here has mentioned Islam except you. Read the replies

 

I know that
No one has
but it doesn't stop other people from other parts of the board coming and making a fuss about it.

Beside someone could accidenly say something
that could offend and not realise it.
I'm just concered that it might have a same repeat that happen way back in October in other board is all I'm saying.

Don't have problem with politics it your opinion at the edn though.

 

No offnce but you can't ask for a thread to be closed incase something is said because then everything on here would have to be locked really.

If someone says something offensive you complain about it and then asked for the thread to be locked.

 

Well actually Charis, I dot think the US make any separation from islamic people and arabs and the terrorists from 9/11. As hey make no separation from Iraqi people and Saddam.

They will kill innocent civilians and they wont care as long as they get Saddam.

The US is just a big bully who want retribution against anyone after they got hurt. Why should we support such bloodthirst people?
They will become the terrorists they ironically want to irradicate.

Attacking Saddam Hussein and Iraq wont stop Bin Laden from getting another attack on the US. In fact he probably has something planned to celebrate the anniversary.

And they think Saddam is a threat now? Wait until they really attack his country.

 

DA6 - the thing is, blocking a discussion is not a way of promoting your cause. Best thing to do is read the offensive post, then educate the poster by a polite informed balanced post on here, and a polite "hello, but what makes you think that" PM to said poster.

 

LV this has been happen before
but I'll stop my bickering but don't let me say that I told you so.
I'm not Having a go on Turr I'm just concerned.
I get too much Politics everywhere and this forum helps me to escape from it.

Well I hope this thread will have an healthy opinions and replies.

Happy posting. DA6 out ................

 

Yes but that isn't us, you can't assume it will happen everytime someone has a friendly discussion or you will live your life in fear.

Hell yesterday I had to watch someone take the piss of dyslexics and I didn't like it we just asked for the thread to be locked because it was offensive but it doesn't make me think you guys are going to tease me for being dyslexic.

 

The first thing I would like to say is that I am not anti-American, just anti-George Bush! The man is a fool to put it bluntly. He does not have the charisma or stature to be a world leader. And quite frankly, the man scares me.

Glad I'm not the only one!

DA6 - If you see the poll results - the vast majority are against action. On a related point a lot of my friends are Muslim and were worried about being treated badly after 9/11 I think the sort of intellect that would try something like that would rival that of the President.

 

Just clear something up:

I'm only worried about other people making a fuss is all I'm saying.


It does't looks like so I'll take it back but please do continue on the subject and forget about it.
There was a misunderstanding from my part and so I'm sorry and Apologies to Turr.

I'm not going to post message about this nature.

Happy posting

DA6 out.

 

Your national media, while quite good in many respects and superior to the US media in most, gets US internal politics absolutely wrong.

I have gotten the feeling that your media and country wrote Bush off before his election, and haven't bothered paying attention to anything not spoon-fed to you by the Beeb about him since. The criticism of him in Britain has reached parody status. Oh, and Hillary has *no* chance at the US Presidency, which is another blind spot the lot of you have.

 

Nahh what I dont like is the fact Blair would take us to war just so he can have a good relationship with you guys, no offence but that is not the best reason for attacking a country

 

LOL

Thanks R7. I've studied US politics since 1994!

I think George Dubya is a fool. Its not a parody, but simple fact! Remember when he couldn't remember the name of General Musharraf of Pakistan whom he was due to meet! Hardly statesman status.

I think Hilary wouldn't win the Presidency because of the attitude of the electorate. No woman or black man will be President in the recent future. Thats not a inflammatory comment before anyone jumps on me, but an indictment of the candidate selection procedures of the two American parties and the voting system in the States.

To win in America, you must appeal to the lowest common denominator, which is unfortunately a white, middle class man.

 

you forgot black woman Az

But I agree with you there will not happen for some time!

 

Yeah. I didn't say black women, because the term 'women' encapsulates all creeds for this particular subject.

I think our 'special relationship' is similar to the ones you can get down Kings Cross for £50...

The whole 'War on Terror' thing amazes me. Shouldn't the United Nations be dealing with this? And where were the Americans when we were having ourown 'War on Terror' with the IRA since the 1960s...

I shall stop now.