POLL: Iraq, Yes or No

Remove all ads!

Simple, just state wether you agree that we should go to war or not.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 61 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Iraq, Yes or No (61 votes.)

Iraq, Yes or No (Choose 1)
* American, Yes - 25% (15)
* American, No - 11% (7)
* British, Yes - 3% (2)
* British, No - 15% (9)
* Other, Yes - 8% (5)
* Other, No - 38% (23)

 

Hehe First One to vote, And I Voted For America Not to go to war. You may be like what is he thinking... But honestly I myslef wouldnt want to go fight a war, or would want to see anyone i know go off to fight a war.

 

The country before the decision should represent the country that you come from, not the country you want to go to war or not.

 

Well along with alot of the british im well against this war, I worked for the British army in the first war in a tactical role. that time it was an unjustified war that we had every right toi wade into to save the innocent people that were getting caught in it.

This time its for no other reason than to make america look big and give all the smaller nations the "dont f**k with me" stance. And Blaire is just trying to be the 'big man'.

If Iraq reall had these weapons, with all these threats being banded arround dont you think he would have used them by now to get us before we get him? Think of this. what were doing right now is already starting to form a rift in NATO and the UN. Germany and France are openly opposed to the war and are making no secret of it. Now when (lets face it its no longer a question of if) we go to war, we WILL win, were more advanced and numericaly superior. Who next? korea? well if two countries are kicking up a stink now, what about if we strike against a country that has made no real threat or hostile moves against us? sooner or later someone is going to step in and intervene in a military way. cue WW3 with us as the bad guys.

 

I'm Canadian, I voted for the States to attack, and here's why -- Saddam is a sicko, he supports terrorism, and he's trying to get nukes. Now, the U.S. doesn't eliminate every sicko, but those they can, they should. Saddam is evil incarnate, and needs to be stopped. Then, they should move on N.Korea. If we stop these creeps before they get REALLY rolling, we avoid the problems the Allies faced with Hitler.

 

I choose other no, as in, Australia, get your arse outa there!

 

I voted Britain No. I'm sick of it having to be our little island that has to go fight these stupid foreign wars against mad-men and terrorists.

 

"Saddam is a sicko, he supports terrorism, and he's trying to get nukes. Now, the U.S. doesn't eliminate every sicko, but those they can, they should. "
the US supports terrorism, but calls them freedom fighters instead, the US has nukes and has proven that they will use them on innocent people, so, lets start eliminating american sicko's

 

You're surley not implying that Europe should destroy America!!??

 

I don't know what you are talking about with the first part of that.
The part about the nukes. Well, you must feel that it is okay to use conventional weapons against civilians (as England did in WW2), but not nukes. Interesting stance. IMO, nukes are another weapon. No weapons should be used against civilians. This is something that much of the world agreed to after WW2.
But why am I responding to another pointless, ignorant rant against America? My bad.

On topic. I believe that if Iraq does not comply (quickly) with the UN resolutions, then the U.S. should attack and finish the war that Iraq started in 1990.

 

But is it worth all those young British and American lives?...

 

D-day. Was THAT worth all American/Canadian/British lives?

I don't want war, but if our dear Mr.Hussain doesn't give proper explanations, then we musn't risk that this madman can do whatever he likes to.

 

No,
I really don't want it.But there will be one

 

No war. I think very few of us know the horror of war (myself included) and discuss it as if it's just a little trip to Iraq and back.

 

"You're surley not implying that Europe should destroy America!!?? "
no, im simply saying that if america wants to clean up the world it should start at home.

"The part about the nukes. Well, you must feel that it is okay to use conventional weapons against civilians (as England did in WW2), but not nukes. Interesting stance. IMO, nukes are another weapon. No weapons should be used against civilians. "
britain only aimed for civillians once, dresden, in all other bombings it was an attempt to hit specific targets, and all our bombings came in retaliation for bombings against our own civillians, nobody nuked you, hell noone even fired a shot at american soil

"On topic. I believe that if Iraq does not comply (quickly) with the UN resolutions, then the U.S. should attack and finish the war that Iraq started in 1990. "
your not keeping up with current affairs now are you? maybe all thats been said by the US tabloids, or the saber rattling by bush and blair... iraq HAS complied with the UN demands... all of them, and the weapons inspectors have still found no evidence of any banned weapons

 

Not true, Shoshino. If you think that the difficulty the UN inspectors have had getting interviews with scientists, and the large number of unaccounted-for weapons, and the intercepted phone calls proving that evidence is being hidden adds up to "compliance", your expectations are way too low. Iraq has been on parole; it has violated that parole. The fact that the UN has not already cracked down (as a result largely of bloc voting by undemocratic countries) proves that the UN should no longer be taken seriously. Enough democratic countries agree to take Iraq in hand that I think the dangers of "multilateral" action by the US have been strongly mitigated. Time to ruck up and go to war.

I'm not a warmongerer, and like any sane person I don't *want* war. Some of my friends and colleagues will likely die in Iraq if we go to war. I may end up dying in Iraq myself; I'm an Army reservist. But I think it's necessary.

 

the problem with the 'evidence' is that it is well within the US's capability to fabricate it, as for the unaccounted for weapons, like wise there was never any solid proof that they existed.
as for teh scientists, the scientists didnt want to be interviewed, just like as a member of britain i would never be interviewed by a foreign body that i didnt recognise

 

My father was a tail-gunner in the Second World War. He saw his friends killed, he nearly got killed himself, he still has nightmares nearly 60 years later, cannot watch fireworks without feeling queasy, and still has inner ear problems from the night they dove 15,000 feet to get out of AK-AK range. Yet he never regretted what he did. He was willing to risk his life and possibly make the ultimate sacrifice because he believed that what the Nazis were doing was unconscionable. No sane person wants war. Good men and women die on both sides. But appeasement doesn't work, slapped hands don't work, and swallowing lies doesn't work either. Saddam has proved his aggressive and duplicitious(sic) intentions time and time again. He has not fully cooperated with the UN sanctions -- he never has. The UN has Chamberlained for long enough. The present methods being used to deal with him are not working -- it's time to show him the world means business.

I've called myself a hawk in other posts, and that's a mistake on my part. I'm not for WAR WAR WAR regardless of the price. I'm aware of the horrible cost of war. But ask any WW2 veteran, and you'll be told that sometimes the price is worth it. Iraq is one of those times.

 

Shoshino,
So fire bombing Dresden is okay, but nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't. Interesting position. Regardless, it was nearly 60 years ago. If that is all you have, then you can keep it. I'm not going to respond to any more of that kind of nonsense in this thread.
On topic.
It is not Americas responsibility to provide evidence of anything.
It is the responsibility of Iraq to provide proof that they destroyed their weapons of mass destruction. The weapons inspectors are supposed to be confirming that Iraq did destroy their weapons. So far, Iraq has provided no proof.

Iraq started the war. They agreed to the terms of the cease fire. They have not met the terms. If they continue this path, the war is back on.
It's their choice.

Edit: grammar

[ February 13, 2003, 19:05: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

war kills a country. Assasination kills a man.
I voted no.

Note;
Don't get technical with me. I know it can be done with the same resources as a war claims. Period.

[ February 13, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: Nobleman ]