Bring it on you anti-war wannabe hippies!

Zukustious

I'm pro-war. There it is. Barely anyone else is, because it's "unpopular" to be. Most of you anti-war people are wannabe hippies and you know who you are. Basically, when I tell someone I'm pro-war, they keep coming up with all these stats i.e. the amount of people dying in Iraq because of the war. Does anyone realise that they are dying anyway? Saddam is just as much a dictator as Hitler was. The only reason people fought Hitler back was that he started spreading. People would do the same to Saddam, if he started to spread his way of life to us.

All thse "wannabe hippies" keep coming up with all the things that are wrong with the world like the amount of people dying in Iraq. These world leaders make a decision to fight the tyrannical leaders like Saddam, and then you all say war is not the answer. Well if you're so sure on what the answer isn't, please give us a bloody alternative. That's the main problem with you. You don't give an alternative.

Saddam is depending on all of you to keep his reign of dictatorship going. The war is against Saddam. The people of Iraq all know he's a dictator and they suffer his cruelty. Then, when these armies come in to stop him, as if they will finally get freedom, War protestors come along and intend to stop the war.

Because there are so many people dying in Iraq, killing Saddam is probably the most passive option to ending their suffering, ironic though it is.

There are however, anti-war people who I have much respect for. Those who don't agree with Saddam but don't want a full scale war. I agree that Bush is probably in Iraq for the wrong reasons, but even if by chance, he is doing the right thing for the people of Iraq.

Goodshape

I think theres a lot more it than whether or not Saddam deservers to be taken out of power.

It's the fact that even with the majority of the world and the UN against them, America still thinks it can do as it pleases.

I don't want to live in a world where America is always right and the rest of the planet is too fu(king scared to say otherwise due to the economic implications.

It's all business at the end of the day.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Zukustious

Yeah I know what you mean. Why only attack Iraq? Well, the reasons are oil but the outcome should be a good thing. Bush Jr. isn't doing this for the right reasons at all. It's greed what fuels him, or his puppet masters.

As I stated before, though unintentional, Bush Jr. is doing the right thing.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Zukustious

If he gives all that money to the corrupted leaders they're just going to spend it all on more weapons. That's what Saddam is doing. Spending too much money on weapons and not on food.

And we're not talking millions, last time I heard it was billions.

gandalf

Zukustious its all very well being "pro war" but what does that really mean. If it means you support unilateral action by the US at the expense of the UN then I seriously call your judgement to account.

If there was enough proof for the UN to call military action I would support them. There wasn't the US and UK ignored them and sent a invasion force into place. It is wrong, it is against international law.

Saddam Hussien is a scumbag and a murderer we all know that. The only reason the US are taking action is he is a scumbag and a murderer not carrying out their bidding. The only people who should carry our regime change is the Iraqi people themselves.

If marching and pointing this out to the US and our Government makes me a "anti-war wannabe hippie" then I am proad to call myself that. Maybe when you leave your kleenex covered couch after watching 8 hours of Sky News you can make a stand too.

Gandalf.

Zukustious

As I have stated before, I know the U.S are in there for the wrong reasons. I don't watch sky as it's completely biased. But the U.S are trying to kill Saddam. Am I the only one who thinks that that should be done. An alternative could be to deport him from Iraq but that's not going to happen.

Also I'd like to point out that not one of you has given an alternative to war. Basically that's what I want to hear from you.

Originally posted by gandalf
If there was enough proof for the UN to call military action I would support them. There wasn't the US and UK ignored them and sent a invasion force into place. It is wrong, it is against international law.

Gandalf, I have a problem with the UNSC.
I mean China, Russia, and France all had their own interests at heart to an extent when considering what to do with Sadam.
China drove tanks over people daring to look for democracy in Tianamen square and I needn't mention Tibet.
Meanwhile Russia aren't going too softly softly in Chechna.

How can I have faith in internatinal laws if , the principal architects of the laws are very hypocritical in their application of them, and I include the UK and the U.S in that bunch.
mm

ballooba

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
Tell me this…..Why not have a go at North Korea? W.M.D galore I tell yah!!

because they actually do have WMD and therefore if the US went after them they might get burnt.

Its billions btw not millions. Circa 50 billion is what Bush originally asked for the war.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Zukustious
Also I'd like to point out that not one of you has given an alternative to war.

Gandalf just did:

Originally posted by gandalf
If there was enough proof for the UN to call military action I would support them.

You pro-war types have a short attention span, don't you?

adam

The Surgeon

As I have stated before, I know the U.S are in there for the wrong reasons.

So you admit they aren't justified in being there, but that's okay because Saddam will be overthrown. Well, there's a nice precedent. Kinda like telling the police it's okay to shoot everyone in a building because somewhere inside there's an actual criminal. :mad:

No one disagrees with you that Saddam is an undesirable leader and although he isn't a current threat, it makes sense to neutralise him now. Your comparison with Hitler is logical. If Hitler had been taken down in 1936, WWII might have been avoided. But if world security is just a convenient by-product of a war that by your own admission is not primarily about confronting a genuine immediate threat, the war is illegitimate.

It is also illegitimate because it is (a) against international law and the will of the international community and (b) because it betrays American hypocrisy. There are other regimes in the world as bad and some even worse than Saddam but the US is happy to leave them be to suit their own immediate interests. There are also regimes treating people with as much cruelty as Saddam is treating his and America is giving them unconditional support.

What is the alternative the war? Peace. :rolleyes: Dialogue with the regime, weapons inspections which were achieveing real results, education for the people. Maybe these sound like hippy ideals to you but to me they seem better than allowing fifty people to get blown apart trying to buy tomatoes.

But I guess that peace won't get the US and the UK what they really want: cheap oil, increased military and political power and in the case of the US, cultural imperialism.

Clintons Cat

the 100 days air war in gulf war 1 didnt get rid of saddams chemical/biological or ballistic missiles,the most effective dismantling program was undertaken by the UN weapons inspectors afterwards .A quick google should find the exact ammounts.
Could Blix have been given more time and resourses to continue his weapons inspections.
I think he should have.

Éomer of Rohan

I'm pro-war. There it is. Barely anyone else is, because it's "unpopular" to be. Most of you anti-war people are wannabe hippies and you know who you are. Basically, when I tell someone I'm pro-war, they keep coming up with all these stats i.e. the amount of people dying in Iraq because of the war. Does anyone realise that they are dying anyway? Saddam is just as much a dictator as Hitler was. The only reason people fought Hitler back was that he started spreading. People would do the same to Saddam, if he started to spread his way of life to us.

It is most certainly NOT unpopular to be pro - war; in fact now that the troops have gone in, the balance seems (from what work I do on the ground) to be 50:50 - though that will shift back to being anti-war when either a lot of body bags come home (Vietnam syndrome - initial anger and support followed by a turn against the government) or there a lot of civilian deaths - and lets be serious here, Mr Rumsfeld has miscalculated badly; even his generals are saying that many more troops should have gone in than the 125,000 combat troops that did. When the battle for Baghdad comes about there are three options; seige it, involving civilian deaths; bomb it into the ground - more civilian deaths or finally, the WMD option - tactical nuclear weapons - this one involving the most civilian deaths. So you see, people have good reason to be concerned with casualties, though you dismiss these out of hand.

I am not a hippy. I think you should justify the statement that a lot of people are who don't support the war are 'hippies' because I find it very insulting - especially when you actually don't deal with any of the political / union groups that set up the 'stop the war coalition' and I do. To say that they are hippies implies an opposition to war in general - peaceniks if you like. That is far from the truth. None of us, myself included, are anti-war but many of us know what America has been like in the past with her bombing campaigns (look at the bombing of Serbia for a recent example) and are not prepared to put up with the hypocrisy displayed by the 'humanitarian' concerns of America for the people of Iraq; they are concerned because Iraq has oil and anyone who says they are not 'concerned' for that reason would do well to look at the trade relationships between China, Indonesia, Burma, South Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia et al and the US. This war is nothing to do with the average joe (or is it average muhammed? lol) in Iraq; it is to do with power ina strategic area, control of oil and military prestige - not to mention distracting the American population from the declining economy at home; war is always good for business.

As to people dying anyway, I don't honestly think even Saddam would have bombed that marketplace, or the building in which the civilians were taking refuge. And before you start on the Halabja massacre, don't forget some things; that the US / UK had a hand in giving Saddam the weapons with which to kill those 5,000 people; that neither the US nor the UK actually cared until Saddam invaded Kuwait, then it was cast up as a reason - and then ignored in favour of leaving him in power and thirdly, it happened once - that was 15 years ago - it is a little stale, especially given the war, sanctions and bombing campaigns in between and of course the resultant deaths of those - of course the 500,000 children cited by the UN would have died anyway - so Saddam's government actually feeds most Iraqis - what does that matter? And the victims of American bombs would have died anyway as well. Yeah. I wonder, if you has been alive, would you have said the same about Vietnam - maybe the three million casualties (a significant part of which were not even Vietnamese, North or South but were Cambodians / Laoans and most of which were civilians) would have dies anyway under Ho Chi Minh? Same sort of thing.

Clintons Cat

On Halabja and Operation Anfal

it happened once - that was 15 years ago - it is a little stale,

I cant deceide wether you are trolling with comments like that or wether you accually mean it.
You certainly havent thought about the wider implications of such a crass statement.

Genocide a little stale...ffs.

Do yourself a favour,Read This Thouroghly

Éomer of Rohan

In the days before the uprising was crushed by advancing Iraqi troops, the Kurdish parties succeeded in removing the majority of the documents they had captured from the towns to strongholds in the mountains. In the spring of 1992, one of the two largest parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), agreed to a tripartite arrangement in which Middle East Watch and the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee were the other two partners. Under this arrangement, the PUK agreed to send the documents in its possession to the United States for research and analysis; the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed to turn the documents into official records of the U.S. Congress and store them in the facilities of the U.S. National Archives; and Middle East Watch agreed to conduct research on the documents for human rights purposes, including the pursuit of a genocide case before the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I will accept however that stale may have been a wrong choice of word. Probably what I should have said was that should the western powers pursue Saddam after all this time for that particular crime, then certain human rights bodies would become embroiled in US / UK duplicity to their own detriment.
PS - does 'ffs' mean 'for f**k sake' ?

Zukustious

O.K, first of all. To dahamsta, I don't think military action allowed by the U.N counts as an alternative to war. The surgeon brought up a very good point there about police going into a building and killing everyone there because one of them is a criminal.

You're right, it is wrong. I know that and yet I am still pro-war. I believe that in the long run things will be better for the people of Iraq, if Saddam is no longer in power. I believe there should be equal rights for women and children there. It would also be nice if the human rights were inforced there.

Also, I expected a lot of posers to post in this thread. You all seem to know what you're talking about instead of just saying "Stop the War" or "Death is bad". You all know that there are posers in the ranks of the anti-war marches.

Éomer of Rohan

I believe there should be equal rights for women and children there. It would also be nice if the human rights were inforced there.

There are two aspects to deal with here; certainly if women and children want equal rights, then give them such but it is not our place to interfere in a culture that, even when the adherents live in western countries, they follow strictly. But then, IMO, children don't have equal rights even here.

The second reminds me of a song from an author I like; 'Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice' and yes, it would, thus in theory I agree with you. However, it is vital to take into account the 'structural readjustment' to the Iraqi economy that will follow an 'allied' victory - which will lay Iraq and her people open to exploitation of a different sort; economic and cultural exploitation - something which is all the worse for being endorsed by the myriad nations who partake therein. What is more, the question of what America (and let's be clear, it is America, not Britain and certainly not any of the other 44 overt and covert 'coalition' members that will decide what happens post Saddam) will do with Iraq after the war is being increasingly ignored by the media and by the public - something which ultimately is as important as how the war is carried out; we must not forget that the US has a dangerous number of anti-muslims - Newt Gingrich for one - and that this could simply be the lead up to a modern version of the crusades; consider the recent threats against Syria (for 'co-operation' with the Iraqi regime; is this not American imperialism gone mad?) and Iran (for not succumbing to US influence the first time around?!). How long before these extend to Jordan and eventually to an Islamic KSA - which, given the deterioration of secular power in that country, is a matter of time IMO?

Clintons Cat

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I will accept however that stale may have been a wrong choice of word. Probably what I should have said was that should the western powers pursue Saddam after all this time for that particular crime, then certain human rights bodies would become embroiled in US / UK duplicity to their own detriment.
PS - does 'ffs' mean 'for f**k sake' ?

I agree that the present American Government,tends to have selective memory when it comes to upholding international law,
Rumsfelds somewhat recent conversion to the Geneva Convention on prisoners whilst ignoring it in guatamala bay sticks in my craw.The other is the dubious legality of Depleted Uranium Rounds which the Daily Press Briefings are being unusually coy about wether or not they are being deployed with the implications for the long term health of civillians and other non combatents.

there is quite a well informed discussion on the implications of Operation Anfal and the worlds reaction to it here

Von

Originally posted by Zukustious
I'm pro-war.

Well shut up and join the army then. It's not that difficult. And it's fun.


"For you, mental johnny woggo, the war is over."

Lemming

My thoughts on this matter.

I, also, am not anti-war. However I do believe that war has it's use and that use should be used in it's proper place

ie. as the final desperate act of politics

because that's what war is. The continuation of politics by other means. It is the failure of politicians to do their jobs and should never be entered into lightly or in a dismissive manner.

Rumsfeld (and his little wodden puppet) have done none of the above. They have jumped in with the reverse order. War first, politics later. In short, they are either inept and failed polticians or blood-thirsty war-mongers that enjoy being the cause of wanton destruction.

YES, Hussein is a brutal dictator and the world will be the better for seeing the back of him and his regime, but not like this. At what cost are we (the west) prepared to get rid of him?? And I don't mean 6 months from now. I mean 5 years from now. 10 years? 15?

Woden

hmm anyone feel free to correct my where i'm wrong here but, france could have chosen to veto any resolution from the security council effectively making the war illegal yes? france said they would do this regardless of the speed/result of the weapons inspectors. hence the war would never be legal due to the choices of a one of two countries. But did america and england not have the majority of the council, something in many places would be considered enough.

also the u.n is weak really why should they be the ones to decide whether a war is legal or not? hussein was in obvious breach of the resolutions, everyone says give him time, give him time but when is enough time, he's had over 10 years, why is he only disarming now?

oh yeah i'm pro war also and think the ends justifies the means and that less people will die in the long run if hussein isn't in power and if the u.s are going after the oil **** em, at the end of the day its all gonna be gone soon looking at it over a longer time scale, hmm maybe it will force them to achieve stable fusion.

bonkey

Originally posted by Zukustious
I believe that in the long run things will be better for the people of Iraq, if Saddam is no longer in power. I believe there should be equal rights for women and children there. It would also be nice if the human rights were inforced there.

But what evidence is there that the US will be able to build a stable, democratic nation which will make things better? Even Sand - one of the most pro-war / pro-US regular posters here - has admitted that the US isnt big into nation-building.

See, I agree that removing Saddam is fundamentally a good thing. What I dont agree with are the reasons for doing so. If China had told us that it was going to annex Iraq because it believed Saddam had WMDs, and that the Iraqi people would be better off under Chinese rule, I'm sure we wouldnt be so happy about the whole thing.

Whats selling us on this war is the promise that its all ultimately for democracy and equality and all that. Its going to make life better, just like it did everywhere else the US has gone in to make similar changes....except that their interventionist history is littered with examples of where they go in to do good, and then pull out before seeing it through when extremist elements cause the situation to decay into brutal urban wafare, as has happened in places such as Beirut and Mogadishu.

Even Afghanistan - the site of our last "most successful war" has hardly improved under the new regime (who controls very little of the country - the rest having reverted into the control of factional warlords who do as they wish). And where is the massive foreign presence helping to rebuild their nation as promised, helping to bring it under control and to promote democracy? Why they're in Iraq, doing the same thing all over again, making the same promises, leaving little in Afghanistan but a small-scale force which is enough to keep the government in control of the areas it already has and thats about it.

The thing is that I believe the US intends to make life better for these people. What I question is that the war can be accepted simply because of these intentions, when the reality of our history is that the intentions rarely become reality....particularly in this particular region of the world.

So, I would ask the question as to whether or not the war is acceptable if it removes Saddam, but plunges the state into effective anarchy and/or violent factional unrest for the next few generations....as would seem to be the result in previous failed attempts at bringing democracy and peace to regions.

If not, then what assurances do we have that this will not be the case? What will the US do better this time that will prevent it from going pear-shaped?

jc

Cork

Originally posted by gandalf


Saddam Hussien is a scumbag and a murderer we all know that. The only reason the US are taking action is he is a scumbag and a murderer not carrying out their bidding. The only people who should carry our regime change is the Iraqi people themselves.

Gandalf.

Now I am in 100% agreement with Gandalf.

But I think that the Iraqi people might be more worried about day to day things than Saddam.

I also think - how can they rise up aganist Saddam & his armies?

They will risk execution and torture.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by daveirl
If it's what they wish shouldn't they be allowed rise up against the invading force?

Yes they should.
Some, maybe a lot will.
But no doubt very few Iraqi's have the benefit of seeing and hearing all the picture from a variety of sources like we do.
Exposing, militia dressed up in civilan uniform might be a better plan, thats if they believed this liberation thing if they heard it.
mm

Slutmonkey57b

Extract from an email to Mike Moore (www.michaelmoore.com) regarding the war, and in particular a moronic article in the NY Times entitled "It used to be Just the soldiers who died" Article

he idea that "Only soldiers used to die" is an absolute fallacy that any teenage student of
history should be able to disprove, even in american high schools. Civilians have always been
casualties of war, either by the direct sack and rape of besieged cities in ancient and semi-
modern times, or in the suppression of opposing peasants by invading armies. Even when
discussing the "disgusting" treatment of the native south americans by the Spanish tends to
gloss over the treatment of the native south americans by other native south americans in tribal
wars long before the Spanish arrived. Innocent civilians are going to die in the coming conflict.
But it is equally important to admit that innocent civilians would be suffering in equal, or greater
numbers, if no conflict were taking place.

I agree with much of the anti-war protester's concerns about the legality of the war and the
argument that Bush is using the war as a smokescreen for other issues. But there are equally
fundamental truths to the pro-war argument which are being, in effect, dodged by anti-war
campaigners. Without facing up to these truths, or if you prefer "compelling arguments", the
anti-war argument is not liable to sway me. I'd like to think that the website might publish
some sort of response to these arguments (however they may be phrased)

Why I, a dedicated Pro-Moore Campaigner, am also Pro-War.

1: "Innocent civilians will die in the war." This is a fact of war, no matter what the cause. War
means death. Any army can only hope to minimise the casualties it inflicts. For the amount of
weaponry used, the civilian death toll is very low. This is not an exoneration of the deaths, or
an apologist stance. But it is far from the "hundreds of thousands" (Charles Kennedy, Lib Dem
leader) that some have predicted. The war is not a haphazard "bomb everything that moves and
hope for the best" affair that was assumed to be the case. The only way to avoid this is never,
EVER to go to war for ANY reason. Read on to see why I think this will not happen.

2: "Bullying Works." The spectre of dictatorship is not a new problem. It is as old as humanity
itself, and it exists simply because of "Club Rules". No I don't mean Tuesday is Ladies' day. I
mean "He who has the club makes the rules". If a man says to you "Stop praying or I'll bash
you with a club", chances are you'll do what he says. Unless you can stop him using his club.
Saddam has a big club. Bush has a big club. Putin has a big club. China has a big club. The
only way to stop the man with the club is to have a club of your own - Unless you live in a
democracy. Read on if you disagree with the definition of democracy in the western world.

3: "This is Bush's war, not mine". I agree that there is a fundamental lack of representation in
the US for the anti-war stance at the moment. But I do not believe that democracy has failed.
The British Commons debate prior to the sanction of war was a rare example of democracy in
action that moved even me, a man who never votes on basic principle (neither would you if you
were in Ireland). But if the anti-war feelings of the population were not represented, it was the
failure of each delegate to represent his community - not the failure of the democratic system.
Had the Commons voted against it, the country would have had to pull out of the war.
Is this my war? I believe, strangely, it is. Because it is a war that can have the effect of
removing one of the many dictators from power and replacing him with something else. That is
something any liberal should celebrate. The same opportunity should be used to unseat Bush
by those that believe he is a dictator of his own.

4: "Why bomb the Iraqis? Saddam can't threaten the US or the UK!" This is the only point that
*really* turns me against the anti-war protesters. Its an absolutely disgusting "I'm-all-right-
Jack" point of view, poisted mostly by people who purport to *care* what happens to Joe Soap,
and I'm suprised to find it on your website. This argument simply boils down to this:

"Who cares how many Iraqis Saddam kills inside his own country? He's not hurting me!"

Disgusting. But I actually have no problem with this kind of attitude - PROVIDED IT IS
CONSISTANT. I have no problem with someone who genuinely does not care about other
human beings - at least there's no hipocrasy involved. But this from a "defender of the people",
or any left-leaning liberal, is proof that for a large part leftist politics has entirely lost its way.

I'll quote you directly:
" Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock
market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be
there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make
any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve. "

I ask you to answer this:
Which is more important - the right of a population not to be tortured and killed, or the right of
people not to pay more than two dollars for gas?
Also, are you aware that a lot of people in europe pay a lot MORE than that for petrol - some of
them by choice?
Do you really believe that it's more important for the richest economy in the world to worry
about its pension funds and stock options than to worry about who's toturing who in what
foreign country? Is America really that decadent?


5: "They were happy enough to ignore his use of chemical weapons when it suited them". Yes,
they were. That was entirely wrong and immoral. But geopolitics and large national politics
tend to be immoral. In this case, their immorality has come back to haunt them and can be
used to good purpose. The administrations are genuinly twitchy about how they are percieved
in this conflict and are desperate to be seen as the good guys. In any case, the anti-war
argument is no less cogent. People who were demanding years ago that something be done
about Saddam are now arguing that he should be left alone.
You CANNOT argue with moral conviction on the one hand "How dare the US support
dictatorship x,y,z, it's evil?", and then argue "How dare the US do something about
dictatorship a,b,c?". I don't believe the US is really interested in the welfare of the Iraqis. But I
think the opportunity to use its moral ambivalence to do some good for a change should not be
missed.

6: "The UN should have been left to deal with the situation. The whole thing's illegal." It's time
to face the fact that the UN was not dealing with the situation. Weapons inspectors were
thrown out in 1995. That means a man holding a club came up to them and said "Get out". Not
that there was a lot of diplomatic and legal argument leading to a suspension. Weapons
inspectors were let back in NOT because some snake oil salesman from the UN managed to
get them in with "Puh-leeeease, we'll let you watch all your favourite TV shows for a week"
diplomacy, but because large weaponry was built up and the regime was told "Last chance.
Let them back in or this man with the club will start using it." Like I said, Club Rules. Those
security council members that dissented on the second resolution supported the first -
knowing full well that the only reason the first worked was the threat of conflict.
Screbrenica, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Palestine all marked
deathly, and very public failures of the UN to act when it should have had the power to do so. It
has handed anti-UN figures in the US with more ammunation to try and destroy it than the US-
led invasion of Iraq will. This is a bad thing and something that all parties (not just the
Limbaughs of the US) should be held accountable for.

7: "The regime was getting rid of its weapons". What, weapons that only a few months before it
denied ever having? You don't have to be an evil cynic or a Bush apologist to admit that the
sudden "oh whoops, we did develop those missiles after all. Heh. I thought you meant the
'pointy' missiles." admission was anything but a stalling tactic. Had there been less public
"progress" from the weapons inspection team, the UN would have sanctioned the war anyway.
The regime knew that. The UN knew that. The regime also knew it had strung along the UN for
11 years and could continue doing so. Why would a man whose existance depends on
threatening people with a club get rid of his nicest clubs? (see club rules above)

Slutmonkey57b

originally posted by gandalf
If there was enough proof for the UN to call military action I would support them. There wasn't the US and UK ignored them and sent a invasion force into place. It is wrong, it is against international law.

There is some disagreement over this - in fact even two senior lawyers from Matrix Chambers (C. Blair's human-rights organised practice that actually argues against the government a lot) quoted recently in the Times offered differing viewpoints of whether the conflict was legal or not. The question of legality can only really be decided by those experienced and qualified to do so, which let's face it is not us. (unless someone's hiding their commission as a judge to the International Criminal Court from us....)

On a basic note though, in order for the UN to call military action, that decision would have to be made by the Security Council. France's definite "NON" essentially ruled that out. Assume for the moment there was enough proof. If the assumption is that any war not mandated by the UN is illegal, and that only the security council can give that mandate, and if a member of the security council was going to use its veto to refuse a mandate to any war under any circumstance, then any action taken would have been illegal anyway. Proof would have meant nothing.

For a perspective on Chirac's principled stance against the war, please read the "Letter from France" in the last Private Eye.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

Ever notice that most pro-war people tend to call anti-war people 'Saddam lover' or 'Hippie'. You think they could get over the name calling.

I'm not anti-war. If I thought that killing Saddam and occupying Iraq with US troops would do the job, heck I'd pay for the bullets.

But sadly the world isn't that simple, despite Bush crying "With us or against us".

The accidental bombing of Syria has helped bring them into the war. Iran is remaining neutral despite the current wording coming out of the US Seems to suggest they are next on the list (if not Syria).

If Iran wasn't building nukes, you can bet your asses they are now as fast as possible. As is North Korea.

The US has shown that it will ignore the UN and other countries and do pre-emptive attacks with the help of finacial pressure to secure it's intrests. No matter how much diplomatic channels are used from now on every country will know this and act on those actions.

The war has done nothing but distabalise the middle east, and for what? So someone can drive thier SUV to work.

If you think otherwise. look at history. OBL hatred was born out of the US occupying Saudi Arabia and look what happened there.

Wook

Zukustious, You call me 'Hippie' again and you will meet my peaceloving boot up your arse.

Ps: anti-sadam, anti-war, pro-removal of regime.
certainly not 'Hippie'