No War?

Riamfada

Excuse me all you No-War supporters. Why would we not stop a liar and a murderer?

MAC_E

Yea i think your right there grimes. Bush needs to be stopped.

dahamsta

Gah, got there before me!

Riamfada

do you not think Saddam is more dangerous?

MAC_E

To world peace. No i think that bush will do a lot more damage, especialy when it comes to world relations between america and the rest of the world. I will be as happy as the next person when sadam is gone, but to hold war to oust sadam without the un and general public backing is madness.

Dampsquid

All those people who don't want Saddam removed are those people who would walk by someone one the street who is getting a beating from a group of thugs.

Sadly to say that number is growing in this country.

bonkey

Originally posted by Grimes
do you not think Saddam is more dangerous?

Look, this is old territory.

The only threat Saddam poses outside Iraqis one which has been outlined in shadowy detail by the propagators of this war.

Tony Blair has alternated between telling us that Saddam does have WMDs, and is trading/giving them to terrorists, to saying that he know this is happening in the world today and is worried that Iraq will join in, to saying that his fear is that this will soon become a reality.

Now, for a man who claims to have the intelligence on all of this that he trusts, but can't show us, you'd think he'd be able to put forward a more concrete view, rather than switching between saying several not-quite-the-same things, some of which dont even necessarily put Iraq as the main problem here.

The US has fared no better in their statements. They offered weapons inspectors co-operation, and yet failed to lead them to a smoking gun. In desperation, they tried to have declared missiles cast as the smoking gun. When that failed, they went for a balsa-wood, duct-tape and tiny-engined plane (again, on the declaration) thats visually controlled as their smoking gun.

Their entire case is about as solid as if they had just stood up to the Iraqi statements and said "liar, liar pants on fire" and then invaded telling the rest of the world to "trust us, becayse he's a liar". Again, there seems to be this general belief that one side must be telling the truth, so if you call them a liar, you must be honest.

No-one taking an objective has actually shown that Hussein is a threat to anyone. A despot, yes, but since when is war for regime change considered to be acceptable.....or is that where you're thinking is headed? That war is ok as long as its to get rid of someone who's ideologies are different to our own.

jc

gandalf

Nope but then again most of us are not the vigilantly type that would beat the crap out of someone because they might commit a crime.

Are you a vigilantly then Grimes & Dampsquid ?

I agree with the others here, Saddam is a blight on the face of the planet but Bush is doing more to endanger World Peace and Stability than Saddam ever done, even during the Iran/Iraq & Gulf War.

Well I suppose thats what happens when you get a Cowboy to do a job its shoddy and falls to pieces.

Gandalf.

Brendan

The most powerful man is the most dangerous man.
Bush is the most dangerous man.
Too much respect for power is a bad thing.
Look at what we let the Church away with.
I personally am very fearful of Mr. Bush and what he is capable of doing. He shows no respect for the UN or KYOTO or anything else that stands in the way of his 'national interest '

bonkey

Originally posted by Dampsquid
All those people who don't want Saddam removed are those people who would walk by someone one the street who is getting a beating from a group of thugs.

Because, as we all should know, the solution is to beat p the thugs.

Of course, then someone will see us beating up the thugs, and the correct thing for them to do is give us a pasting for being thugs ourselves.....and we end up in a lovely unending cycle of violence.

No-one was advocating leaving Saddam alone before this war. They just argued that violence was not the only, nor the preferable solution here.

Just like the stance I would take about dealing with your street thugs.

jc

LizardKing

I'm not overly Anti - US , I've some friends who are yanks and some relations over their but I do think they have voted in a leader who just might end up starting world war 3 - and by the sounds of his speeches etc. I'd imagine he'd have no problem pressing the big red button to fire his weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION at anyone he thought was a threat to his "HOMELAND SECURITY"

This guy has too much power and too little brain cells

The Russians have filed a motion witht the UN to get this attack classed as unlawful. Then would the UN peace keepers try to stop the COALITION forces ... No cos' they are too strong.

We are living in a world run by the Richest countries and the U.S tops that list ..........

Perhaps we should all stop being anti war and get on the US band wagon , if ya can't beat 'em join 'em :rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by LizardKing
The Russians have filed a motion witht the UN to get this attack classed as unlawful. Then would the UN peace keepers try to stop the COALITION forces ... No cos' they are too strong.

NO chance. They are simply trying to force the US or UK into using their veto to prevent this bill from passing despite otherwise unanimous support....which will then make a mockery of the US and UK having criticised the other nations for using a similar tactic in the first place.

The other nations will then sit back and abide with the findings of the resolution, thus showing their support for the UN in an attempt to restore some credibility in the eyes of the world.

I'm not entirely sure that they will get the unanimity that they seek though....I dont think they'll pull 9 votes on it, because too many of the undecided nations first time round will not want to get on the wrong side of the US - especially if they are signed up to the coalition of the unwilling.

If this happens, I then expect the Russians to make some diplomatic statement about how they had withdrawn their motion because they felt it would not pass, and will abide by the fact that they could not get what they wished....again trying to gain the security council some degree of face.

I'm really interested in seeing if they havethe guts to see it through, and it will really depend on how the rest of the situation - diplomatic and military - is going.

jc

Bateman

One example of the double standards that I cannot stomach is trying for 12 years to convince us that Saddam's Iraq is a major threat to world peace, crammed full of serious weaponry, and then they are extremely cocky, predicting a short victorious war, and they go in and drive through the desert with little or no resistance. :mad:

gandalf

Actually Bonkey a resolution declaring the war illegal could be passed by the General Assembly by invoking Resolution 377 known as the "uniting for Peace" resolution where the Security council cannot come to a decision.

Robert Fisk has written about it here http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=386906 and the details of it are listed here [pdf file] http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/pdf/ares377e.pdf

Gandalf.

bonkey

Gandalf...thanks for that one - didnt know about it. I must add that pdf to my pile of Tings Too Reed.

Originally posted by Bateman
One example of the double standards that I cannot stomach is trying for 12 years to convince us that Saddam's Iraq is a major threat to world peace, crammed full of serious weaponry, and then they are extremely cocky, predicting a short victorious war, and they go in and drive through the desert with little or no resistance. :mad:

I would hazard a guess that it is largely because they are still travelling relatively slowly through the no-fly zone - a region they had almost total control of before the war started in the first place.

They need to be cautious (which they are), but otherwise it is still pretty much a walk in the park.

jc