Andy 60 Posted January 24, 2003 Well, what do you think? I think that we should not go to war. I expect Britain to obey the United Nations if they condem the actions, but I'm quite convinced that the US will attack anyway. It seems to me that only the US and UK are in support of going to war with Iraq, and clearly opposed to the war is France, Germany, Russia, and China. I'd hate international relations to break down with these countries over a disagreement like this, and to be fair, there are more important things to be done. In the UK we have the whole asylum-seeker business (personally I think we should just chuck them all out the country), so I think we should concentrate on our own problems before tackling someone elses. And I think North Korea is more of a threat, with their nuclear capabilites. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Link 3 Posted January 24, 2003 Hell yes we should go to war! I wonder about you people who say no. What do you want to do? Wait until they bomb the hell out of us and then go "oh oops! guess we should have taken them out while we had the chance."? I'm not a violent person at all but when someone is plotting against my home, I think we have every right in the world to kill their ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MsSolo 1 Posted January 24, 2003 It's the whole hypocrisy of teh bloody thing that gets me. If Americathink IRaq shouldn't be allowed Nuclear weapons, America should be forced to give up theirs. How do we know Iraq have chemical weapons? We've gave them to them while America were fight Iran. We gave them guns, weapons, billions of punds, training, mustard gas, anthrax... Do we have a right to be furious they're killing Kurds? Yes, but we shouldn't forget that in the 30s, 40s and 50s we were doing exaclty the same thing. Feeling kinda sorry for the Kurds, really. Who created Iraw? England, form abyssian tribes who were used to fighting each other. Who benefits form this war? Us. We get oil. We get oil. How does this help the oppressed people? They lose a leader who has united their country, and, like sountries that lost dictators when the USSR collapse, will probably end up going through at least a decade of economic uncertainty and terrible governmetns. Little bit of Geography: USA = long way from Iraq. UK = really quite close. UK has more muslims and Iraqi refugees than USA, because they can get here. If the UK goes to war, we'll be risking civil war. Would someone like to point this out to Mr Blair? the USA has a huge barrier betweenitself and Iraq. Like most middle Eastern / Eastern European countries, Iraq doesn't like America (okay, my Geography's actually terrible, but both areas have serious problems with America. And from an objective viewpoint, can't say I blame them). If the USA goes to war, I can live with that, I guess. But why should the UK involve itself? The UN was created to make these sort of decisions. If the UN decides there shouldn't be war against Iraq, I don't think any country within the UN has any right to do otherwise. If the USA is that desperate to go to war with Iraq, they should withdraw from the UN, rather than try and force it's decision to one in their favour by declaring they'll go to war anyway. You can't join an orgnaisation like that and only do as they say when it suits you. No wonder international politics is falling apart! Most of the world is against war. Perhaps America should take this not so subtle hint and stop trying to police things outof their jurisdiction? A quick note, a little OT, but still relevant: Bush senior and Bush junior have the lowest IQs of all the American presidents. Just a thought there about who'd running the most powerful country. Not a pleasant one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake 53 Posted January 24, 2003 You have a very good...and very true point. It confuses me why the States is pointing it's guns at any nation with weapons of mass destruction yet nukes are a part of their own arsenal. The world's police force? Try the world's bully... And we all know that daddy Bush is the one pushing all the buttons behind Dubya... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Master MJade 0 Posted January 24, 2003 *forcibly keeps her mouth shut on the whole thing* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CorSec 5 Posted January 24, 2003 Damn! No choices on the poll to the effect of "I reallly dont care" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess 35 Posted January 24, 2003 Damn! No choices on the poll to the effect of "I reallly dont care" That's the kind of thoughts that allow tyrants like Saddam, (who tests his own chemical and biological weapons on his own followers) to rule. We need to get Saddam out of power but it has to be done tactfully. I won't state my opinions on Bush, but let's just say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and I was only 6 months to young to vote for Gore. This needs to be done tactfully because we can't fight 3 wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea. Being the most powerful country in the world does have some responsibilities, but Bush isn't taking this the right way. Get rid of one threat at a time. Don't spread our military out too thin Dubya. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted January 24, 2003 I can see both sides of this...so I'm really not for or against war all too much. I just think Bush is handling international relationships very badly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Link 3 Posted January 24, 2003 You're not changingmy mind and we aren't asking them to give up their weapons. We just want to see them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Master MJade 0 Posted January 24, 2003 Hell yes we should go to war! I wonder about you people who say no. What do you want to do? Wait until they bomb the hell out of us and then go "oh oops! guess we should have taken them out while we had the chance."? I'm not a violent person at all but when someone is plotting against my home, I think we have every right in the world to kill their ass. or at least hte jerk in charge cuz i was watching the news and the Iragi people aren't allowed to say nething.... and Korea....well.. i don't know enough to say nething but all absolute dictators are wrong....and Saddam is the biggest one i've seen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Link 3 Posted January 24, 2003 *nods* that's exactly it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Master MJade 0 Posted January 24, 2003 well onced i read every1's opinion.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Ani Jade 1 Posted January 24, 2003 I agree with war. Unofrtunately the evidence Bush is looking for won't be found so the UN isn'tgoing to like it. at all. So we see if the UN becomes something or becomes weak. Kind of forced now. Could, or would the UN attack the U.S.? If they don't they look weak. If they do, who does the U.S. (and whoever is on their/our) side attack? The whole world? Otherwise, I have no problem with bombing Iraq to rubble and sending in the army to destroy Iraq's military completely. Korea is overstated, they wouldn't attack the U.S. unless they felt threatend. They'd prolly nuke S. Korea. So I guess I voted yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CorSec 5 Posted January 24, 2003 Is it so wrong not to take sides Princess? I dont have an opinion..not intent on making one ethier. Thats why I dont care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pandora 77 Posted January 24, 2003 I personally wish that we wouldn't go to war, but we have NO choice. For all of you that just shook your head and said, "There's always a choice!" you are right, there is. Here they are... For Americans: choice #1: Go to war. Don't be too worried about retaliation. I have every faith in Bush that when (I'm very reluctant to say "if") we hit Iraq, it's going to be hard, swift, and with any luck, crippling. But it will also be well-plotted. We are not going to aim for civilians. They're the people we are trying to SAVE, as well as ourselves, and our allies. And if you're worried about the oil fields in the Middle East getting destroyed, don't be. In an all-out war, we will be the last ones with oil. We have the national reserves, which have only been tapped ONCE, and Alaska, among other places. Only one percent of our oil actually comes from Iraq-controlled fields (which, I should remind you, Saddam will probably blow up and blame it on US!). choice #2: Don't go to war. This is not as simple as it seems. If we do not hit Saddam and hit him hard before he hits us, then we are as good as dead. By going this way, we are forfeiting the right to BE Americans. For the past 200-something years, America has always fought for the freedom of humanity, has always been a safe place for the oppressed. Not to mention all the Ally soldiers that have died helping us. If we do NOT go to war with Iraq, then everything we've worked so hard to build will be destroyed... literally. As will that of our Allies. For Allied countries: Choice #1: Helping us and going to war. I can explain this in one sentence: This is not America's war, it is that of the human race, America just happens to be doing a lot to make sure the human race stays free. Simple as that. Choice #2: Don't go to war. I personally can't see why you wouldn't want to. If NONE of the Allies (US included) goes to war, this is what will happen: America will be crippled beyond belief, and eventually conquered. (I garuntee you that I will not be here if Saddam decides to cripple the Navy. Millington is the central hub for communications and intelligence. I am ten minutes away, well within the radiation limits of a nuke). Once America is immobile, then Britain. Britain alone has been our greatest ally and support. The Special Services do so much that we cannot because our hands are tied by the Constitution. Unfortunately, Briatin is so small, it won't take much to truely cripple it. Not like America, we're a BIG country. Britain is very small in comparison. Once Britain is out of the way, the rest of the Allies are free for the taking. EVERY SINGLE ALLIED COUNTRY IS A PART OF THE FREE WORLD. If you'd prefer to lose your freedom, don't go to war. If you want to wake up every morning wondering if you'll make it home alive, don't go to war. If you want to practice a religion you don't support, don't go to war. If you don't want the oppertunity to go somewhere in life, don't go to war. There is no such thing as nutrality here. If you think Saddam cares whether or not you've "done anything" to him, you're crazy. If you think this can be solved peacefully, you're extremely un-informed. If you think we're going too fast, then you obviously don't know what our enemies are capable of. if you think you're not vulnerable, and have the idea in your head that nutrality can save you, you will have another think coming. It may take a while, like, oh say, until that nuke hits your town, or all of a sudden everyone in your area is dead because the water supply was poisoned with chemicals, but you WILL see that there is no way out of this. Bush is NOT concerned about re-election. Nor can you blame him for something past presidents have done, including his father. He is not Clinton, nor is he former president Bush. He is George W. Bush, and not only is going to get re-elected (just you watch), but he is going to be the president that everyone remembers as the one that wouldn't back down, the one that wouldn't be intimidated, and the one that erradicated terrorism. Oh, by the way... Iron Horse has already been mobilized, as has a quarter of the British army. War has already begun. Turning back now is not an option. Thought you might like to know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rogue 4 Posted January 24, 2003 Okay, I'm sorry, but I'm not in favor of Bombing Iraq. Think of all the civilians who stand to lose thier lives. And, I agree with you Brits who say we should get rid of our Nukes. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. Nuclear War is forgetting about all those people that they're supposed to be saving...all that because the leader is a Jackass? I don't think so... I do not think that we should enter war. if they want to deal with Saddam, they should try subterfuge. I do Agree, that something has to be done though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pandora 77 Posted January 24, 2003 Rogue, you're right: something has to be done. But it's not giving up our defenses, rolling over, and painting targets on ourselves, whilest jumping up and down crying, "HIT ME HIT ME!!! THROW THAT NUKE A LITTLE HARDER, YOU ALMOST GOT ME THAT TIME!!!!" I still don't think that peace talks are an option, nor is Saddam going to disarm on his own. He's already proven that much. He's had more than one matieral breech, but a few countries are still under the illusion that this can be resolved peacefully just can't seem to be appeased. France is really getting on my nerves right now.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wyld_Knight 1 Posted January 24, 2003 You're not changingmy mind and we aren't asking them to give up their weapons. We just want to see them. This has absolutely nothing to do with 'weapon's inspections'. Intelligence sources already know what weapon capabilities the countries in the Gulf possess. They're just wanting a way in the door. This is not America's war, it is that of the human race. America just happens to be doing alot to make sure the human race stays free. Simple as that. Not so simple. The US happens to be doing alot to ensure she can get the oil she needs to remain one of the world's superpowers. And the thing is, everyone is blaming Bush for this. Try blaming the conglomerates instead... And as for the UN...((*shudders* i really hate political debates such as these, but can never keep me mouth shut, sorry)) Well, it all frickin' started in 1990, didn't it? Starting with Resolution 678, the UN (more specifically the Security Council) has systematically bypassed or misinterpreted International Law in order to give carte blanche to the US, who would not agree to be part of a unified UN group in 1990, to run the 'war' against Iraq. The UN dug its own hole, and its just a pity that if they can't bloody dig themselves out of it that the whole bloody world is stuck in there too... *sighs* I feel sick now... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted January 25, 2003 Rogue, you're right: something has to be done. But it's not giving up our defenses, rolling over, and painting targets on ourselves, whilest jumping up and down crying, "HIT ME HIT ME!!! THROW THAT NUKE A LITTLE HARDER, YOU ALMOST GOT ME THAT TIME!!!!" I don't think anyone said give up your defences... we said give up the nukes. Nuclear weapons are in NO way defensive weapons. Besides, you cannot use a nuclear weapon without risking the lives of innocent people. I still stand by my opinion that war is not the answer. He is George W. Bush, and not only is going to get re-elected (just you watch), but he is going to be the president that everyone remembers as the one that wouldn't back down, the one that wouldn't be intimidated, and the one that erradicated terrorism. Yeah... that or the one that destroyed the world... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted January 25, 2003 Anakin Jade- N Korea would not nuke South Korea. If they did, they'll meet some bad radiation. Same with Japan, and China(Their only big ally). In a few years, if they keep on researching missles. They can have a NUKE that can reach Almost anywhere in the US (Except the Waaaaaaaaay eastern parts). They have the 4th Largest army in the world...not something to be take lightly. Pod- First of all...as far as I know, the US hasn't found any nuclear weapons in Iraq. If the DID, then your speculating that they are going to have a lot and just be throwing them around wastefully...and how all the UN countries are going to die one by one cause Iraq just keeps launching nukes all day. Thats not gonna happen. If the US attacks. Iraq will lose...with allies or not. The US only has to fear what will happen if the UN decides to stop all the rule bending and punish the US. And I hardly doubt its going to be a war. If the US doesn't attack, then YOU think that Iraq will nuke the US. If they do...then the UN will sway over the the US side, and destroy Iraq. If they don't then the UN and US will still bomb and pressure Iraq, until saddam dies. If Iraq attacks with something other than nukes...well, like you said, the US is big and probably wont be destroyed because of an attack by Iraq. You say that this is a war for the human race...what about WW1 and WW2? Do you not think those are important? There were neutral countries in those... Im sure Bush will go down as the 40 something president, but he is on a blade...If the UN attacks US (As Anakin Jade said), then he'll start a WW3...if he destroys Saddam...he'll be known as a leader in the war on terrorism... Princess- the US isnt fighting Korea or Afghanistan right now...we're centering mostly on Iraq. In conclusion (I love the transition phrase), Im still neutral...but Iraq sure wont have that many nukes that they can destroy the world 1 by 1. Remeber...too many nukes and the world that we know it is gone...and we'll all be mutated things...except one of the insects that can stand nuclear radiation...So that means any war will probably just be regular missles...or in iraqs case, bio weapons Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted January 25, 2003 There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq has Nuclear weapons, or even the ability to build them. I have this book about WW1 and WW2 and it's interesting to see how everyone got involved, and it really shows how easily a dispute can turn into a global war (although WW1 was really more of a European War). Going to war with Iraq could unintentionally draw in other nations against us, which will force the UN to help us, and by then we have a very serious problem on our hands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MsSolo 1 Posted January 25, 2003 War solves nothing, it always leads to more war. Engladn and France were fighting for about 6 centuries. Germany's been at war with pretty much everyone, including itself. WW1 led to WW2 which led to the COld war which led to the War on Terrorism. "You can not solve a problem with the same mindset that created it." (Einstein, I think) Whether America want to admit it or not, they created this problem. And America hasn't always been the one to stand up for human rights. The Brittish Empire abolished slavery 50 years before the US, shortly after the War of Indepence. i'm not saying it's politically viable at the moment, but we need an Impartial world court to which all politicans are subject. The problem isn't Iraq, it's Saddam. In the same way the problem wasn't Afghanistan, it was Osama. And you can't start a war without hurting civilians. Ever since WW2 and before (The Blitz is teh first example I can think of) military tactics have been to bombcivilians until govts give in. Yes, they frequently bomb parliament houses, but those contain a hell of a lot of civilains. And teh American army is infamous for freindly fire. One reason they have few allies, they keep accidentally killing them! Why war? Why not assassination? It would solve the root of teh problem whilst harming as few people as possible. Of course, there would be huge international incident if the assassin got caught... I'm encouraging murder here. Damn. Forget that idea. Sometimes, it's people like Bush and Blair who make me want to go into Politics. PS - WW1 wasn't just a Euproean war, but you only ever get taught about the Euuropean conflicts. I don't know why. Perhaps the East resolved it all a fair bit faster? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted January 25, 2003 PS - WW1 wasn't just a Euproean war, but you only ever get taught about the Euuropean conflicts. I don't know why. Perhaps the East resolved it all a fair bit faster? I meant most of the fighting occured in Europe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MsSolo 1 Posted January 25, 2003 I don't know a huge amount about WW1, since we did it a few years ago now. Did get a day trip to Beligum though. 18 hours day trip. Japan did something. I know that. I imagine they invaded China. And Turkey was involved with one of the far Eastern countries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted January 25, 2003 China and Japan were on the same side :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
