Viewing Thread:
"Why don't we attack the world?"

For having nuclear arms?

Oh I forgot... we're the good guys right?

Sadam and Bin Laden are a lot smarter than Bush and Blair

Hypocrites

Yes I am scared of war because as you said if saddam has WMDS then we're done for.
and no super power will be able to stand in his way.

Saddam is a liar a murderrer and a scum.
He even tortured his own poeple.
One thing I do know he does is he gets one of his prisoners through to taste his orange juice to see if it's poisoned.
if it's not the prisoner gets shot.
That's how ruthless Saddam is.

I'm all for toppling Saddam.
and I think that by inviting inspectors in so soon after he said they'd never get back in is another one of his games.
He's stalling for time.
I say we should bomb him while we still have the element of surpise.
but we must watch how we tread!

The moment Bush polished his gun on Sept 12th last year, invasion of Iraq was a forgone conclusion.

It's just been dragged out to give both sides equal chance to debate and feel like they made a difference.
Debate away guys, all intelligent points made but at the end of the day any society's principal power, it's ability to govern is through it's power of war.

"Do this or we'll hit you"
"No"
"You asked for it punk"
WAR
"Sorry, wont happen again"
"Good. Now accept our demands"
"...alright"

Happened since we smashed each other with jawbones.
The only question I have is this:

Who's next after Hussein?
Answer: Check the receipts we have for the weapons we sold.

Sky News has a good quick connection to the dossier on it's own servers @ http://package.sky.com/skynews/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf

~~Belldandy~~

The UN lies at the whole centre of this. Refusal by the UN to enforce sanctions that have been ignored for 11 years is why we've come to this point.

Take one look at the stock markets - the UK doesn't want war and neither does the USA, it's just that this is now a time where the threat of force must accompany a new UN resolution.

If the UN will not create a new resolution then it is no longer of use to the world and it will have failed.

If Saddam is not a problem then why deny full weapons inspections ? It's amazingly simple - let them in, don't obstruct them, they will find nothing (if there is nothing) and then Iraq could make the USA and UK look stupid. Iraq isn't doing that. Why ? It continues to voice denials but not offer proof.

Why does a country with no nuclear power stations need materials and equipment for nucear material ?

Take a look at our relationship with Europe, we get messed round on everything we try do - beef, imports, exports, competition, immigration, law, extraditions, organised crime, military co operation. Sure, short term we could gain from moving from the USA. Long term, the USA is the ally to have and maintain. Look at how Europe reacted to war in Afghanistan, Balkans, even the GUlf War - reluctant to get involved and all were happy to continue business as normal - I assume people know just how much buisiness France, Germany and Russia do with Iraq, and intend to do. America protects and helps its friends, always has always will. I'd rather the UK was with them than the backstabbing Europeans whose past records of recognising threats is dismal.

Doughnut Monster; I think that, and I may be wrong, you're afraid of war. Fine, thats a valid point, but isn't it more scary to know Saddam has the ability to deploy WMDS in 45 minutes and the range to hit as far away as Cyprus ? Today's dossier clearly shows that Saddam does not consider WMDS as last resort weapons, like the west, but as prestige weapons - first strike ones in other words. Thats very scary and underlines why action must be taken now.

Once he has nuclear capability then it's all over.

Rumsfeld is talking of a decapitation strategy. This seems the best thing to do if the UN cannot enforce its own resolutions -which I believe it cannot now do without military force behind it.

Look at it like this - if war goes ahead and me, and all the others who say Iraq needs to have it's regime and WMDS removed, and at the end of it Iraq is found to be innocent then it'll destroy the governments on both sides of the Atlantic, and you'll all be able to use it for the foreseeable future. If everyone like me is right, and the anti war lot wrong, then we've just saved the world and prevented the next World War, and we won't stop reminding the appeasers out there of it.

~~Belldandy~~

we've got to watch ourselves.
Bin Laden and Saddam are both threats and they must be dealt with but war maybe isn't the answer.

I think that This is more of a war on Iraque than a war on terror.
bush seems hellbent on calling war no matter what the UN says or does.
Tony blair is just like a lap dog to bush.
Copying everything he does and sucking up to him all the time.
Forgive me if I seem a bit agressive but that's just how I see it.

I just don't wnat a WW3.
becaue if that happens then were as good as dead!

Anyone watched Blair addressing the house ? Thought it was a rathe brilliant statement, combined with the damning dossier this morning whihc detailed what most sane people suspected. 45 minute deployment ? If that hasn't worreied people...... Anyway, I was glad that the father of the house guy got slapped down with his vote thing - before people moan bear in mind that there are rules to be followed during such debates and Dalywell was breaking those.

Finally, did Charles Keendy look like the idiot son of politics or what ? He must've slept through what Tony and Duncam Smith said;

Tony : "There can be no one who had read this dossier that doubts Iraq has WMDs"

Kennedy: "Doubt still remains...." :P

Er lets see, Conservatives and Labour largely on the same side, Liberal Democrats appeasing Saddam..... Kennedy gave the impression that to be convinced he'd have to have a nuke explode in front of him, idiot, listening to him was like deja vu to 1939 all over again.

Ah well, I think everyone knows where this is leading, the question is whether it's already to late - as William Hague pointed out, intelligence can be wrong.

~~Belldandy~~

I'm not going to argue over what is 'right' or 'wrong' here because that's totally subjective anyway so people won't ever agree on every point, and also because I probably don't know enough about this to argue any views properly, but I'm just going to add something I thought of...

When someone demands something in the UK or USA by kidnapping a prominent figure or threatening with bombs etc. isn't it our policy not to negociate? We won't negociate with them because they are using force to threaten. Ie. you give us this/do this for us or we'll... blow up this, kill him/her, etc.

Now how is this different to us and Saddam (except on a bigger scale). We say to him let us inspect your weapons and ensure there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction there or we'll invade and overthrow you. We're negotiating using force. Just like the terrorists or whatever that we refuse to negotiate with because they are threatening violence.

Now, I'm not saying that we are 'right' or 'wrong' here, but either way we are being hypocrites...

Amnesty is seriously flawed, along with about every other human rights group.....on another note, anyone get the feeling we could carry on this topic for the next fifty years and none of us will still back down ?

Ho hum :) *watches Isreali's on tv rolling over Arafats compound* Strange isn't it ? Palestinian terrorists excel at suicide bombings and attacks, they've got whole units of the Israeli army surrounding their supposed leaders compound, and they aren't attacking them ? Strange that, they're pretty good at attacking civilians so why not now...oh yeah, the Israeli's might be able to shoot back !

~~Belldandy~~

It's the fact that they're trying to be something they're not, they're imposters, frauds. If that's ok with you, fine.

Sorry why are you attacking Amnesty International?

Fook sake

No nothing wrong with America or Israel it's all Amnesty's fault

Uh hum