Should US/UK hit Iraq???

ISP

Wondered what the consensus was. Here in the UK, Blair seems set to support Bush in hitting Iraq but there is not wholesale support in the UK. There is some dissent in other countries. So what do you think?

ISP

Simon

No.

If 'having weapons of mass destruction' is the crime then they should bomb each other.

At the moment, the most aggresive country in the middle east is Isreal yet there are no suggestions that they are bombed.

rhett

No. I'm with Simon in wondering why we are so supportive of Isreal. Oh wow, they're jewish and fighting muslims. Not exactly the best reasons to support someone if you ask me.

ISP

Some compare Saddam to Hitler. In the '30s Hitler was appeased. It didn't work. If you had your time again...you would have taken out Hitler, right? So is it right to take Saddam out? I have to say, it makes me uneasy. I can't see the arab world taking it.

ISP

Hasn't Israel just emulated the US in its 'war on terrorism'?

ISP

Xander

The whole situation is ironic.

The Israelis were kicked out of the land they claim to have taken by force, and demanded 'their' land back, and got it. And that was fair.

In the process, kicking out the natives. Who now want at least PART of 'their' land back. But, that's unreasonable....

Xander F
(Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America - Ohio order)
A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
--George Santayana

Xander

(that said, the Iraq issue is a little different...not sure if we should get involved again...dunno? He is bucking the UN sanctions, so....I just dunno...)

Xander F
(Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America - Ohio order)
A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
--George Santayana

GWEEDO

The hitler sadam analogy is covenient...but i think its bollocks.

Should they hit Iraq?

Why?

Because he is supporting terrorism? Need a bit more proof on that one.

Because he has weapons of mass destruction? A bit more proof.

I mean, why didn't they hit back in the 80's when he was really dangerous????...oh he was a friend then, forgot!!!

Iraq has had the shit bombed out of it for the last 10 years. They are subject to one of the most extreme sanctions in history. UNSCOM, as Richard Butler has said, pretty much dismantled their weapons capacity until they were kicked out. They aint what they were in the 80's.

But it looks like the US wants to do it...so be it. Glad i'm not an Iraqi peasant.

Who does the US want to replace Sadam with. Democracy...hardly. The majority of population in Iraq are Shi-ite. Cant have the Shi-ites siding with shi-ite dominate Iran. This is One of the reasons why they didn't support the Shi-ite uprising against Sadam in 91 and turned their backs and let Sadam kill his own people. They want to replace Sadam with another dictator...one that is west friendly like Sadam was. One of the reasons is so they can have access to the 2nd largest oil fields in the world. They are currently talking to a few generals, i believe. One, i know, is a war criminal.

oh well...whatever

hillary_step

Simon,

At the moment, the most aggresive country in the middle east is Isreal yet there are no suggestions that they are bombed.

I agree, a tragic and pointless conflict that is now thousands of years old continues unabated.....but.....

Israel is a nuclear power, Palestine is not. Israel recognizes Palestine’s right to exist, Palestine does not offer a similar right to the Jews.

We must ask ourselves if the Palestinians, who have still not rescinded their publicly stated aims towards Israel, that is, that total annihilation of the Israeli state is the only acceptable solution to the Palestinian people, what would have done if they were a nuclear power?

I suspect we would have seen mushroom clouds over Jerusalem a long while ago.

The Arab states have a very different agenda to Western views of the Middle East, only the Saudi’s and Jordan pay a superficial pretense to the recognition of the State of Israel, most of the others would bomb Israel at the drop of a hat if they had the capability.

With these differing agendas in mind the sight of Israel flexing it muscles on occasion serves to remind those who stated aim is to destroy it utterly, who holds the keys to military power in the region.

A plethora of complex issues with too much pain and sorrow piled up over too long a period for anybody to be entirely wrong, or right about their grievances.

Best to you - HS

Amazing

The crime is not the possession of weapons of mass destruction. The problem is that Saddam Hussein has proven he will use them ... e.g. his use of bio-chemical weapons on his own people, the Kurds.

As a civilization we have no choice but to take out Saddam. I favor the proposal that the USA/UK work with the Kurds and other defectors in Iraq the way we worked with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Support, supply, train, equip, finance, and provide air cover ... and let the locals do the dirty work the way they want it done.

Its a political win-win that way.

Following Bible principles, we will avoid trying to live - or demand others to live - by an extensive and rigid set of dos and don'ts that go beyond the teachings of the Bible. The Watchtower, 4-15-02, pg 22, pp 15

Should US/UK hit Iraq???

Share this