Will UK Support US In Action Over Iraq?

by Englishman 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Englishman

  These are the results of a poll taken on Friday, September 13, 2002, by YouGov:

  Do you support or oppose a UN deadline to let arms inspectors back into Iraq?

  Don't know: 1%.

  Oppose: 4%.

  Support 95%.

  If inspectors are not allowed back in, would you support or oppose UN-backed military action?

  Don't know: 3%.

  Oppose: 17%.

  Support: 80%.

  If the US goes it alone, should Britain contribute troops?

  Don't know: 9%.

  No: 57%.

  Yes: 34%.

  There you have it folks, it appears that the Brits are all in favour of action, providing the UN give their backing too.

  Englishman.
• 

  sleepy

  Will UK Support US In Action Over Iraq?

  Good thing I don't use the bus service, and we better stay away from cafes and restaurants, fighting Saddam is so going to stop suicide bombers, I dont think.
• 

  Pathofthorns

  Going through the UN is what several countries have been trying to get the US to do for quite a while. Those countries will now have little choice but to follow through now and support the UN in enforcing the conditions and terms imposed on Iraq. Perhaps still not a desirable outcome but one that at least has been achieved by following proper processes and one that will give a measure of legitimacy to an invasion of Iraq.

  You have to wonder if it is the US that is keeping the world in order or if it is really the other way around with the world keeping the US in check.

  Path

  Edited by - Pathofthorns on 15 September 2002 8:3:4
• 

  Francois

  Will the Brits support us if we attack Iraq?

  Does the Pope wear a funny hat?

  francois
• 

  Mary

  Don't expect too much help from the Canadian government.......once again our Prime Minister has suceeded in embarrassing us in front of the whole world with the unbelievably stupid comments he made the other day like "Et ez bro-bably de Wes-turn world'z own fault vor Zeptember 11th, because de Western World ez greedy and arrogant and de poorer nations don't like dat."

  Asshole.......I hope Bush kicks ass on this!
• 

  BluesBrother

  Why is it that people who are normally peaceable can get war like, just because their government wants to get involved?

  Why are people so ready to believe politicians and spin doctors?

  If "Our Boys " are over there , they want to get behind them. They seem to think it is another World Cup Tournament

  Sadam may be a tyrant, but the world is full of tyrants. He has not ventured outside of his borders for eleven years so what justification is there for attacking Iraq at this point in time?

  If USA/GB go for him they will be the aggressor and morally wrong
• 

  Patriot

  BluesB. said
  "Sadam may be a tyrant, but the world is full of tyrants. He has not ventured outside of his borders for eleven years so what justification is there for attacking Iraq at this point in time?

  If USA/GB go for him they will be the aggressor and morally wrong"

  Saddam controls the 4th largest army in the world. He is not only a tyrant he is a lunatic. You can't have someone with his track record holding on to this kind of power and even more so if he finishes his nuclear projects.
  Justification is obvious. Its easy for you to sit in front of your computer and spew foward all your ignorant comments.
  I was there 12 years ago, I know what he's capable of and what he's up to.
  If something is not done now, the world will regret it later.

  But of course you wouldnt care much being that your at home all nice and cozy warm, with the US military protecting YOUR freedom while some third world country gets invaded or even worse nuked.

  The UN is like a police department, if you dont comply with the international laws that have been made and enforced, then simply stated, you'll go to jail.

  There is nothing wrong with keeping that big crack smoking bully who likes to carry a 357 under his shirt off your block...is there?
• 

  Englishman

  Saddam is a bigger threat to the UK than the USA, simply on the basis of the ability to deliver over a shorter distance.

  Tony Blair is addressing the UK "dove" politicians this week. I have little doubt that he will swing the country into supporting an attack on Iraq.

  The real truth is that everyone would prefer simply to see Saddam assassinated by the SAS, unfortunately this would be considered more illegal than going to war unsanctioned. One can attack a regime with relative impunity, but legalised murder of an individual is frowned upon.

  Englishman.
• 

  FreeWilly

  The arguement that States like Iraq should be left alone if they don't act outsid etheir own borders may have been relevant years ago. However, with the proliferation of technology the risk of allowing rouge states to develop military capabilities is very dangerous.

  Remember the uneasy feeling you had when the world discovered both India and Pakistan had developed nuclear bombs and had delivery vehicles on which to deliver them?

  Image a similarly armed Iraq defiently opposing anything from the world community. Held hostage would be anyone within range of their weapons. Not much room for error - thats why the 'touchy feely crowd' needs to sober up.
• 

  sleepy

  Why exactly does the US want Saddam dead?Because he is bad to his people?Like hell.

  Because he is a threat to them?Maybe, but how does going to war with Iraq reduce any threat?It seams the biggest threat to our safty comes from terroist groups units within our own countries, units who do not care about the power of other countries and who are willing to die for their cause.

  Just look at Isreal.

  Saddam was not the cause of 9/11 , how will killing him make the world safer?It may make it worse.