To the cause of war

And you are a *****.

Sorry but I could not resist that.

Veh, quit nitpicking. So someone got the figure of the people killed in 9/11 incorrect - it doesn't detract from their point.

I am not sure whether I agree with war or not. I do feel sorry for the Iraqi people. But Saddam is a bit of a nutter, and I think its time that he went. The world needs less people like that, not more. Whether he was involved in 9/11 or not doesn't really matter to me. He is capable of something like that, whether or not it was actually him on that occassion. It could be Saddam in the future, I think.

We need to completely remove Saddam from power, and remove his power base. I am sorry, but maybe that is going to take a war, and its only war that can do it. I don't know. If there was another way that I would jump at it, but I am not decided either way that there is.

Not an oxymoron Veh, only opinions.

u.s intelligence is incredible - opinion one

i dont think its about oil - opinion two

Here's a real oxymoron = Microsoft Works!

u.s intelligence is incredible ?????????????
Don't make me laugh, that's why Powell and Blair have to use a report that has been circulating on the internet for over 10 years !!!!
The only thing they they know for certain is about the arms they sold Saddam during het Irak-Iran war, actually the man acting as US representative during that time was Rumsfeld ...

so in one sentence you claim American intelligence is nonexisitent, and in the other you hint at some shadow conspiracy towards other nations?

If you are talking about stealing from the graduate thesis, then I think that smacks more of laziness than anything else.

I don't think they can afford it being lazy ... with more and more countries opposed to war (without backing of the UN). Everybody is overwhelmed by the enormous response last weekend, millions around the globe marching against the war !!!
... and especially European leaders (even Tony Blair) are getting cold feet : all polls say that 70% to even 80% of their populations are against this war !!!

Americans are not complacent, it is (mainly) our troops, our weapons, our money which will be used in the coming war.

Though I do not believe it, many people are saying Europe has forgotten whose entry into WWII changed the course in Europe, Africa, and Asia. Does Europe remember the 300,000 dead soldiers or the Marshall Plan? I would say French Gaulianism is spreading ....

Violent protests are uncalled for... But so is this entire war thing.

We started swinging out big stick around before we even had one shred of evidence that Iraq had the capacity to build mass destruction weapons - And funnily enough - It's still a cloudy proposition.

War in any degree, is very silly and primitive. A peaceful resolution should be aggresively sought after before wasting billions of dollars and possibly lives on an almost useless war which no one else wants to backup. At the very least, we should wait for the rest of the U.N. to join in, but we do not.

Our troops are going to be split among 3 different countries (America by no means has the largest standing army) and this is a very poor strategy for winning anything.

The main thing that has always bothered me though.. Is that American officials began planning on how to divide up Iraqi oil BEFORE we even officially decided we "might" launch a war. It was on CNN. That pretty much says it all.

I'm all for making the world a safer place, but there are other methods of doing this and two other situations we need to pay attention to before we go pounding on Iraq's door.

That's all very well, Rick.

But you are assuming that the rest of the world is as intelligent, humane and civilised as you.

They are not.

For some people, some groups, some regimes and some countries, war is all they understand.

You are talking about a country that makes a mockery of democracy; you are talking about a leader that gives orders to gas his own people.

In the end, the only thing that could stop Hitler was war. Maybe that is all that can stop Saddam.





...oh, and another thing.

Look at how unpopular this is all making Tony Blair.

Ths could even cost him the next general election if this all draws out....

You think he doesn't know this?

Sure he does. And he's willing to risk it anyway.

And that's very likely because he DOES have good reasons.

It cannot be right to kill even a single innocent civilian under any circumstances (how would *we* feel if any member of *our* families were killed while trying to get rid of a dictator that *we* didn't even support). Its too easy to say go to war when we aren't the ones that will suffer. Most Iraqis are against Saddam and would love to see him go. Maybe we should invite Saddam for talks with Nato and then arrest him, or target him with a cruise missile while he sleeps. Just a thought.

Do you think he's daft!? He will have thought of that.

In any case, Saddam has many body guards and doubles, some of which look naturally like him, and some of which have been surgically altered to look like him.

AND he's got an established power base, and is grooming his son as his replacement.

This man is not an *****. If he was, he would not be a dictator of a middle eastern country. He's an intelligent man, and he's already thought of just about anything you could plan.

The only way to beat him is to get the rest of the world united against him, or enough nations to make him scared. The US on their own is more than enough match for him, but as we have seen, the US has problems acting on its own.

I don't buy a lot of the crap over war with Iraq (Or other places) when they say stuff like "oh innocent people will die, don't do it". Innocent people have been dying in Iraq for a long time regardless of whether or not they are at war. These are probably the same people that were "ok" with letting Adolf get Poland & all & hope he'd leave it at that.

I dunno about where everyone is posting from though Channel 4 have had several (rather timely as it turns out) documentaries done covering the regime in Iraq & that of the Taliban. From a football stadium people get hung from the goal posts (afganhistan), meanwhile in Iraq several were beheaded & others hung also on the main streets. Similarly the guy they had in iraq (reporter) HAD to be given a minder from the iraqi government to be used as a translator & from what was seen became rather upset at the mention of saddams son & wouldn't allow him near where the hangings & all took place. Similarly the hotel were journalists *must* stay is checked everyday by an intelligence guy to see what they are up to. Similarly when they were given some tours of places where they were "supposedly" making chemical weapons & such they were told they could look around freely, except they all had to stay in a group & when this guy did wander off (twice) he was forced back to the main group despite being told they were free to look where they wanted.

Heck even after the gulf war ended didn't Saddam kill those involved in uprisings against him or against the..... kurds in the north as was shown over the TV. Killing "innocents" is only a problem to those that don't live under those conditions.

Even on Irish TV a few weeks back they had on The Late Late Show (The highest rated domestic show) they had a good few Iraqi exiles/asylum seekers & they pretty much backed any action to get rid of Saddam & weren't much bothered bout there being some innocents killed as, like they said they were being killed anyway.

The main about this that does annoy me though is the US (well, others too) saying Iraq has failed to comply with UN resolutions & such when for SIGNIFICANTLY longer Israel has been in breach of resolutions as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This man is not an *****. If he was, he would not be a dictator of a middle eastern country. He's an intelligent man, and he's already thought of just about anything you could plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even intelligent people can be *tricked*. Only today, Robert Mugabe was *lured* to France.

If the west can just hold Saddam captive for a short period, re-organize the flawed election (which Saddam would lose), and then send him back to Iraq, then he will be out of a job.

If Saddam's *family* don't allow a free election then we don't release Saddam.

Probably nothing will happen to Robert Mugabe in France, he most likely went on condition that he wouldn't be arrested (which under French law he could be). There's 1 main guy there (I forget his name) who's been trying to get Mugabe arrested but its failed, he tried the last time he was there too & again failed (& was hit about a bit by his security guards too)

Man, I am sorry but it just doesn't work like that, and its not as easy as that. If it was, then what you are discussing would have happened 10 years ago.

If you stop and think about what you are suggesting, then you will realise that its pretty unrealistic. I am sorry, not trying to offend you, but it is.

Saddam is never going to fall for some inane trap, and he certainly isn't going to give up without a big fight.

Believe me, I know that my suggestion is unrealistic, but not necessarily impossible. Saddam is not an *immediate* threat (we can afford to wait a little longer), and its worth exhausting all other options before resigning to war. War is never the best option, though sometimes there may be no other choice. Iraq is not *the* problem - Saddam is *the* problem - so why should innocent Iraqis (also our own troops) suffer the consequences of war.

That depends on how you define "immediate".
He's already been at war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, fired scuds into Israel (Mainly so that Israel would get involved in the gulf war & thus the US' arab allies would stop supporting them as they all hate Israel more than they hate Saddam) & used biological weapons on the Kurds & those in northern iraq who rebelled against his leadership.

I believe you are correct SNGX1275, but put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi civilian who has no control, or say, over the war that may kill members of their immediate family. How would you feel in such a situation. I would not rule out war, but most people seem to agree that we have not yet explored all available avenues. The current push to war may, at least in part, be due to the costs and logistics involved in maintaining the large numbers of armed forces personel currently deployed in the gulf, as they cannot return home until after the crisis is over. Given the current state of the world economy I wouldn't be surprised if this was having some influence on the decision to go to war now in an effort to quickely end the crisis and reduce the cost of military involvment. I'd like to see Saddam go as much as anyone, but civilian casualties should be the last resort. Most people are against war (at this stage) and its not because they are misinformed, well intentioned, but weak individuals, but because they value the lives of innocent people that through no fault of their own find themselves caught in the current conflict.

Finally ...

I define *immediate* as now. If Saddam had current capability for mass destruction, then why isn't he using it now?

Please note: I am playing devil's advocate here. The crisis in Iraq doesn't really affect me here in the UK (not directly anyway) so I can live with any decision that US/UK governments will end up taking.

Signing out ...