Don't agree with war on Iraq? Then read this

Remove all ads!

If more countries are with us than against, why is our coalition 2.5 times smaller than during the gulf war? We were afraid even for it to go for a vote (despite Bush saying in his address that he would go for the vote no matter the result so the world can see where everyone's cards lie). The reason there was no vote was that we were going to lose so badly it wasn't even funny. And world opinion has drastically dropped since our attack. If most of the world was with us, that wouldn't be so. If we attack every nation who breaks UN resolutions we need to be liberating the palastinians from isreal and attacking ourselves. Its funny that we act so nice, but when it comes to votes like Children Rights Acts, we vote with countries like Syria and Libya against such things.

 

BTA,

I heard today that the coalition is up to 44 or 45 counties. The vast majority of them are only pledging monetary and relief support, no troops, but they still support it.

Of course that could be because they are looking for some contracts in the rebuilding, but they have still signed on as supporting.

 

Let's not forgot that some of the countries who are against the war are doing so just because they don't dispise the U.S., not because it's not right. You don't exactly see many "I HEART SADDAM" T-shirts outside of Iraq, and if you do it's merely because he's standing up to the US. Nearly every country near Iraq wants to get rid of him - it's just they hate the fact that we're the ones doing it. America, the "power-hungry zionists who are out to destroy Islam."

 

So you mean out of the several hundred countries in the world, 45 are supporting us (not troops though, and mainly to make us happy). Think about this, several hundred are either neutral or against us and 45 paltry countries (mostly smaller nations btw, very few large nations are with us). Put that way, that is very unimpressive. And I knew you were talking about the security council, I was just saying that we had 2.5 times the support during Gulf War as oppesed to now.

 

To regress on the idea of assassination - one to Saddam would make him a martyr. I think it would create more terrorists than any Israeli police offcier or U.S. bomb.

 

Perhaps it is apropos of nothing, but that is more nations than signed on in Desert Storm. Since they are not putting their citizens in harms way, it may not mean anything.

I would be curious to know the size of the US contingent in this action as opposed to Desert Storm. Anybody seen a good compare and contrast web page? I just wonder if the size of the force this time is a lot smaller because the US had less to commit, or because a lot of nations that sent troops last time aren't this time.

I also think that I read somewhere that some eastern European nations are sending a few thousand troops. Regardless, the US is supposedly sending in another 100,000 troops. I guess that the Iraqis are a little tougher nut to crack that some of our leaders thought.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KMMIYTWDSU1GMCRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=2462251

 

I would agree with you C'Jakob if he were seen as more of a hero by more people. I honestly think his critics in the region go unheard for obvious reasons. Plus, he's referred to as a 'fake muslim.' If he were a religious hardliner, that would be different. Many in the region see him as a decedant, overconfident aristocrat rather than a brave hero or man of the people. The only thing that connects him to the majority of arab terrorists is that he's arab, he's against the west, and his nation is muslim. Aside from that, most muslim fundimentalists think he's a joke.

 

One democratic problem in this crisis is that the US may well have quite a few governments behind them, but very few of the peoples of those governments support their own leaders action. Even the US's strongest ally Great Britain is divided soundly down the middle and Blair's own government isnt completely backing him. He has been forced to seek support outside his own party. That would be like Bush having the democrats vote for him while a large contingent of the republicans were against him.

Most of the governemts supporting the US do so because they think it is wise to be on good terms with the without question most powerful country in the world. Against the wishes of their own people, the eastern European countries are shining examples of this.

I would just like to add one example of the hypocrisy of international politics here. Denmark whose government is a staunch supporter of the US and has sent a destroyer and a sub to show their solidarity and support for the US. While Sweden, whose government has condemned the war in Iraq as illegal and where it is illegal to supply arms to a country in war has sold and sells to the US weapons, spare parts and other arms of an importance far surpassing Denmarks two measly boats...

The world is one tangled web.

 

Actually British support is not split down the middle. Before the war started it was about 70 against 30 for. Since the war started it has gone up to 50/50. This doesn't mean anything though since during the Gulf War support for Bush Sr. was low, then jumped during the war, and immediatly dropped right after. Support simply goes up while the soldiers are in harm's way. Blair simply WILL NOT BE reelected after this. He has no support.

 

Shell. Thanks for opening my eyes. As a father of 4 young children I know how I would feel if they were killed because "the greatest 2 fighting nations on earth" killed them. I would hate them to the end of my days. I would hate Saddam also for the same reasons.

This is why I am against the war, because children will die and they have absolutely no understanding of what is happening around them. If you think that it is alright to kill children through such a war then fine. Your actions are yours and Saddam's are his, there is no comparison. It is not ok for children to die because one world leader attacks another. Do you remember the missile in Amiriya?

And no I have not joined a street march or protest, because they are useless.

I tend to agree with Jschild. Why stop then? Come over and kill Australians too because of the crimes the Australian government committed against aborigines. Why not kill Britons for what they have done during the "Pax Britannica". It never ends then, and it becomes pointless.

The assassination point proves that the US is not all about "regime change" and "liberation" at all. We won't do it because of world opinion. Why start something as serious as war and then whinge that when public opinion at home goes all awry?

Perhaps I'm too optomistic but is it not possible to have change of government without war?

 

How can you say this about the finest Conservative prime minister this country has had for years?

The facts of the matter is that

Tony Blair is not personally elected. The Labour Party which has the majority in Parliament - and a damn sizeable majority it is too - has chosen him as leader. He could be sacked by the party at any time and have to step down as Prime Minister.

Should the political tide turn badly against him personally he will be removed as leader, although he would be more likely to resign should that happen.

He hinted after the last election that he may not stand again as leader of the party to try to win a third term in power.

Finally, the polls from ICM are as follows: February - 52% against war / 29% in favour. Now they read 54% in favour / 30% against. Note that WITH the UN backing of a second resolution, public opinion was hugely in favour of military action from the word go.

Since I can't see the Lib Dems taking power, It hardly matters in terms of public opinion if they were against the war as the Conservatives voted with the Government to pass the bill to authorise attack on Iraq.

As an aside - some of you Americans must wish you had a leader who actually sounds intelligent and knows what he's talking about. The contrast between the two is stark when seen together.

[edit] Damn typos [edit]

 

Thats what I was saying, about half of his party does not support him currently. And for the war, since it was a UN decision, if the UN decided action was neccasary, then that is Ok. Iraq is under UN, not US jurisdiction. If the UN said or agreed that we needed to go to war, then that is that. Iraq is not under US resolutions and does not recognize the US/UK no fly zone, which also is not UN sanctioned. We do not have the authority to attack without provacation a soverign nation. That is the problem here.

 

Going back a bit to the assassination suggestions:

Two major problems spring to mind other than the fact that we've all promised not to do such things etc, etc.

Firstly, getting close enough to do it would be hard enough, chances are that attempts are more likely to end in a major propaganda coup for the Iraqi government. Just imagine: "Look what we have here - an American spy attempting to kill our rightful (no comments please) leader. Now how safe do you feel as leader of Iran, N Korea, Syria, or even China? This is how America conducts foreign policy." Nasty prospect indeed.

Secondly, killing Saddam would not result in a regime change. Simple as that. You'll have to remove quite a number of people to achieve that. Khazrai, to think that assassination of Saddam would solve it all bloodlessly is not correct. It would of course speed things up, but it would not end the conflict as it stands. Nor would it have prevented one as at worst it would have resulted a very bloody civil war. Something incidently which could still happen.

 

All righty, now - don't rub it in. Yes, some of us wish we didn't have a president who bears such a marked resemblance to a chimpanzee.

 

Here here.

 

I want to ask one thing only if Saddam is demonic for killing innocent children and women with the excuse (lame indeed ) that they oppose his reign what should we say for the Israel's Prime Minister whose troops have repeatedly killed innocent children and women and men just because they were Palaistinians and living in the wrong place according to Israeli troops; What will USA do for this massacre will the US President wage war on Israel for the freedom of Palaistinians: I would love to see your answers

 

This is way off topic, so I started a topic on it.

Topic: Israel v Palestine, who is in the wrong, or at least more wrong

 

a little note on assassination suggestions
It is in the U.S. law that the government has not right to issue an assassination. They have passed this, i think, somewhere after WW2 and before cold war.