POLL: Iraq, Yes or No

Remove all ads!

jack funk, i never said that the firebombing of dresden was ok, all i said was that it was more justified then america's simple flexing of its muscles.

"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."

oh really, i accuse you of having vx gas, i have no proof that you do, but then, according to you, its not my responsibility to prove that you do, since according ro you you have to prove that you dont have it, you cant prove that you dont have it, ergo, by default you have it so we can kill you now.

"he weapons inspectors are supposed to be confirming that Iraq did destroy their weapons. So far, Iraq has provided no proof."
the weapons inspectors have confirmed that iraq has no banned weapons, and there was never any proof that these weapons stockpiles ever existed, since the allies supposedly destroyed iraq's weapons back in the gulf war, there is no proof that these weapons have been rebuild hence, the US has no grounds to invade

 

*sighs* I don't like this whole war business. It won't solve anything in my opinion. I mean, what legitimate reason does the U.S. have? So far, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. This stalemate, of sorts, is highly infuriating. I don't want anyone to die, and it would be pointless, to me, for all those lives to be lost, especially if there's no proof. I say, hurry it along, you know. Either find the nuke bunker, if one exists, or not find one so we can move on with our lives.

 

Saddam cannot be allowed to continue these games any longer. If Hussein does not comply with UN resolutions, we should force him to do so.

American, Yes.

 

Well Jack, the Americans are training terrorists

Ft. Benning, Georgia is training its soldiers in the "dark" ways of terrorism, Whisc its called, unfortenately the training camps of Osamah are kiddygartens compared with Whisc

Im cracking up everytime Bush says something bad about countries who are supporting terrorists

@Vargx
Force him?? remove him you mean

 

@Shoshino,
Saddam agreed to the terms of the cease fire. He agreed to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. If he did not have them, then why did he agree to destroy them?

For the record, I don't like the idea of war. If Iraq makes the right choice, there will be no war.

[ February 13, 2003, 21:50: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

I think we should go to war with Iraq. Why the hell not? They'll do what they want anyway, whatever we say. Just out of interest, are there any Iraqis on the boards? PM me if you don't want to announce it. And I promise you I am no satanic Iraqi hater

 

Njet, i don't think that the US should attack Iraq...

 

Don't tell me what I mean, Morgoth. I don't care if he rules there, I don't care about the Iraqi people, et al. I have no grudge against Saddam, provided he does not continue to defy international law and UN decree.

That said -- most likely it will become necessary to remove him. His history is riddled with lies and treachery, aside from the obvious ruthless aggression. But if the UN inspectors were to suddenly say that they have been given full access and found no weapons of mass destruction, I would be content.

It's not like he tried to kill my father.

 

For all you yes's up there, do you still think we should all go in guns ablazing, or perhaps hang fire a little.

[Context - 14/2/03 Blix report]

Edit - Sorry, just voted myself, and was rather surprised at the underwhelming war feeling we have here. Thought we might have seen more yes's than that.

[ February 14, 2003, 19:13: Message edited by: Viking ]

 

so... anyone watch hans blix's report today?
~smirks~

 

Why the hell not? Nuke the whole place and turn it into a gigantic parking slot!

 

Ok time to point out some realities of this situation. As i said earlier i am a former member of Her Majesties Armed Forces.
Anyone aware of the political set-up arround 6 years prior to the first Gulf war will know that Iraq only really had one thing going for it: OIL.
Now as you know crude oil is worth more than gold on the open market as it has thousands of uses once its refined. America and Europe happily lined Iraq's pockets in return for this oil. Also both Britain and America tried to find ways to cut theyre costs by entering into talks with Iraq to see if there was a way to lower the rates for this comodity.
Britian got its way by training Iraq's forces as they have done in the past with countries such as Jamaica, Argentina, and Afghanistan.
America got theyre cut by selling Iraqweapons schematics and by offering a subsidy to help build theyre millitary strength.
Both countries did this knowing that Sudam is more than a little bit mental.

When operation desert shield/storm took place tax rates almost DOUBLED in both countries, petrol prices rose by %73 and we enered a recession. This will almost certainly happen again when this war goes ahead. Look at the 10 most valuable companies in the word right now. Because of the war threat they have droppen in value by 10 billion pounds (£1.68 to the pound) between them this week alone!
Now those of you too young to appreciate what this means, if your british, think of the pertol crisis that happened last year, now think of that lasting a few months, because very few people will be willing to pay £1.40 per litre, the price of fuel has risen be 3 pence per litre already. Tax will raise to pay for the costs of war, you can expect alot of things to be to expencive for your parents, most adults in the UK already pay over 40% of theyre wages in tax in one form or another. America can expect to see somthing similar too.

 

I voted other, no. And no, I'm not Iraqi.

At any rate, I don't believe it is necessary and I won't defend that position because enough has been said on both sides.

I will make a few points though:
1. War will affect the whole world. I'm not from a 1st world country and if the war begins whether my country agrees or not, our economy will take a pounding. This is not to say that the 1st world countries will have it easy. But more than 50% of our popoulation is poor and I don't know how we can recover as a nation if our economy takes another blow.

2. We will never know the true intentions for Bush wanting to go to war. Only he and his staff would know for sure. It would be sad to discover if one supported the war believing the reasons offered by Bush and discovering that it was only oil.

3. War with Iraq is a messy way of eliminating the monster that America created. Yes, you may not been old enough to remember the Iran-Iraq war in the 70s. Iraq defeated a superior Iranian military because of U.S. backing. At the time, Iran was an enemy of the U.S. (Some say it still is.) Iran was also the enemy of Iraq. So, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Now, their monster is out of control.

4. Finally, I think the U.S. should consider itself lucky that there isn't a nation that both doesn't like the U.S. and has the military superiority over the U.S. like America has over Iraq. America wouldn't like being picked on that way. America would say that no nation has the right to interfere in the sovereignty of another nation. One might say that the U.S. is trying to get support from the U.N. before acting. But what about Nicaragua, the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba or support of Afghanistan against the USSR? (I think I'll get the most flak for this point.)

In the end, I think there will be war. It appears that America will go to war for the right reasons or not, with support or not. We all will just have to sit tight and hope for the best.

 

-Because innocents will die.

-LoL,IMO nuking is what can be worst for Iraqis.
Nuking just suck.You don't give a chance to defend themselves and suddenly they die.I care about Iraqis,they are human after all.

I too believe that US made up this "evidence".

I think Turkey must take advantages of this situation,and then i don't care who wins at all.

 

turkey wont have an advantage in the end, their advantage would be to wait until they get their EU membership, allowing american aid right now would hinder that, i doubt that thee US will plough the amount of cash in there that the EC will. also, if turkey allows the US to upgrade its bases then they will be allowing themselves to be dragged into the war, because the US will then use that as a playing card to badger turkey into allowing the US to use its bases for their war effort

 

NO!

I was in a peace rally today, carrying a big sign and evberything...

They don't have any proof on Iraq having those weapons they blame them of, to be blunt, and even if they did, why isn't anyone wanting to go pound the US to smitherens because THEY have massive amounts of nukes and biochem weapons?

I do agree on Deepara that if we don't stop people like Saddam and certain loonies in N. Korea, we might have a new Hitler around in a few years, but there are other ways!

They invented assassination.

An eye for an eye makes wholw world go blind.

(A person with blue hands and a new found political affiliation)

 

This is a view point i find hard to understand. The fact is Bush and Blair will go to war regardless of what the UN say. It seems to me that they have just as little respect for the UN as Iraq.

BTW: Pleased to see 75% of voters against the war.

 

Sadly,this is true.
Also IMO Turkey will never be accepted to EU,as a Turk i can this clearly.
Why they should accept 65 million bumpkin Turk to wander across Europe?
Even if they would,whatever the outcome is it would be our disadvantage,since many there are many games played that we can't see.
So sadly Turkey can't have any advantage in this situation.That's why i don't want war and that's why i hate Saddam...and maybe Bush,heck i loved Clinton,he was a great president(at least in my angle)

 

Well bush is a good example when your appointed and not elected

 

Was that a joke or misunderstanding of how our democratic society works?

I voted yes. I know most of us were not alive during WWII, but there are a lot of similarities going on here. Hitler was violating the Treaty of Versailles left and right. He was building up arms, military, etc. Chamberlain was at the forfront saying "lets not be HASTY, people will DIE if we try to stop him, he won't DO anything." And what happened there?
Now Hussain is doing the same thing. Arms build up, military growth. And what are the majority of people saying? "Let the inspectors do their jobs, lets not be HASTY, people will DIE if we try to stop him, he won't DO anything."
Hitler invaded about three countries before people finally started to realize what was going on and that something had to be done.
If everyone knew exactly what Hitler was doing from the start, think they would have been against it?
If we knew EVERYTHING Saddam was doing, would we still be against it?
I personally think there is a lot more going on than we know about. and that part scares the hell out of me.
Could the US be fabricating evidence? Possibly. Could Saddam really have no weapons? Possibly.
But he does support terrorism. He tortures his people, used nerve agents on them. We've seen a connection with bin Laden. Some people say they don't support eachother. They have a common enemy. Non muslims and the US. Hmmmm, think that would make them the best of friends.
I don't like war. But I think it is necessary for the preservation of freedom and to rid the world or terrorists and sickos. And yes, if Noth Korea does not back down, I think we should go after them next. I live on the west coast of the US. Think I want a nuke dropping in my backyard?

(Elios' note: Special thanks to DePaara for the info on WWII)

[ February 17, 2003, 08:05: Message edited by: Elios ]