A question for those who support the Iraq invasion

A cynic could also argue that Hiroshima, and Nagosaki were the two biggest weapons test of all time!!!!!!!

Saddam should be removed, deffinately, their govenment should (for the good of the people) be rebuild, but I don't see why this has to be done by America, by bombing them to the ground, and crushing them. I fear that removing Saddam is the excuse they need to go to war......

The USA suplied Sadaam with these weapons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This all meakes me think... Well I'm not anti-american and I respect everyone's opinion, but on this topic I can get mad sometimes because there still seem to be people who SUPPORT WAR!!!??? I know that american propaganda tells its people about this war being dry and clean, bombs will just hit the aim and nothing else. It would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad.

Of course Saddamm is evil and has to be stopped, but so does Bush! It wasn't so difficult if the USA would really mean what they say about freedom and democracy. What is it a free country with policemen on the streets every day and cameras all over - big brother is watching you.

Someone here said that the USA don't test their weapons on their own people and someone responded they test it on OTHER people. Shit, that's so very true. Just two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was nothing but a test of weapons. They took these two cities because there were no traces of destruction before so they could see what these bombs could do.

Where would Saddam be today without the help of the USA? Nowhere. Where would Osama be without his friendship with America and the Bush family. In a lonely tent in the dessert and noone would know him. Every time the US need an enemy one is created.

I can't see the US bringing democracy out to the world. Take their foreign policies. It's them in the first line who have the third world under their thumb. I'm sorry.

What do you think will come after the war is over? Peace and freedom for the iraquis? No, it'll be civil war. War causes terrorism. You cannot get peace with bombs. Ah, my head is a chaos right now, I can't get all my thoughts into words and order. Not this time.

It's actually worse than that. The US refuses to grant the captured people from Afghanistan POW status, so technically they don't have to be treated like a POW, meaning the US can do anything they want to them including torture and intense interrigation. Many of the detainees are actually innocent civilians caught up in it all.
United States, not UN!!
They wouldn't dare start a nuclear war in N Korea. Even the US government aren't that stupid. Probably.
They'll come for your fresh air.

they'd probably come to expand their porn industry

they'd say you have nuclear weapons in Sweden... would invade report that they've found and destroyed them without evidence and then would take over

I see your point, but do you not think that policeman, camara's e.t.c. are more to stop other people from comitting crimes, as opposed to a sort of government controle operation???? Are you suggesting that we shoudl be free to kill, rape, steel, as we please, with no govenment intervaton, because hell, we're a free county


Don't be so narrow, one dimensional in the way you see things. I made the Hiroshima point, however, suggesting that it was only a way to test weapons is imature. How many soldiers did they expect would die on both sides if America had invaded? How much would it have cost the country to do this! Plus, the way the Japanese fight makes it very difficult, when you consider they will all die for their leader, i.e suiside bombers for example. You're dealing with somethign different. I don't doubt that testing them was a point on the "for and against" list when they pondered using them, but by no means was it the only reason.

They'd be there. Very rarely do you have individuals that have such a huge effect on people. If Osama wasn't there, there would be somebody else.

Also, by your deffinition, is Britain responsible for Stalin? Carl Marx studied in England, and wrote the Communist constitution, which was taken on by Lenin, who was superseeded by Stalin, who killed millions of people. If you're going to blaim something for Osama Bin Laden you have to blame the foreign policy, as it's been suggested that they created him.... not through tollorance, but indirectly through a policy. This is also a way out, and deflects from the atrocities he caused, he is evil, what he did was unfogivable, and what he did was his fault.


What the allies hadn't faught against America. Germany wasn't a direct threat to Britain, and America in 39, but they still went to war to fight because a) Germany was only getting stronger, if they left him he'd possiably get too strong, and they woudlnt' be able to stand a chance in a war. b) because he was killing millions of people, and there was a morral problem....

If we hadn't have faught Germany in 39 then I don't think we would have achieved world peace, more likely we'd read about Jewish people, black people, disabled people, gay people e.t.c. in books, and would have a system moving towards the society depicted in 1984, i.e political police controling what peole said, and thought. Sometimes war is nessesary, and has to be faught....

I'm against THIS war, as I don't think it's absolutely nessesary, I think there are other avenues which haven't been explored, and I thus think this war is wrong.

1984 is just a book - however well written

you forget that there was internal resistance and that you can never, no matter how brutal a country's rule, dictate how peoples' minds work... if anything that should be the message you take from 1984

america joined for other reasons than the 6 you listed... namely:

U-boats attacked US shipping to Britain of food/weapons - and therefore a loss of trade and of finance/capital

Pearl Harbour - a dent to US pride

Politics of Roosevelt

opportunities for US businessmen, bankers, industrialists

full employment

economic recovery (linked to latter)

Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto with Engels - he was a German economist and political theorist...

Lenin's and Stalin's rule bore very little resemblance to the original Marxist text... hence leninism, stalinism, maoism etc...

iraq... middle-east are all problems created by Imperial Britain

Did you not read the final few pages of the book then? That was sertainly one of the messages. No matter how strong your beliefs, not matter how hard you try to push them away, they can break you, and they can make you think in accorance to them..... The last lines of the book for Christ sake.... something like, it was when the bullet hit the back of my head that I realised. "I loved Big Brother"....

Yes it's a book, but it's not 'just' a story. He's using his imagination to image how a state like the USSR, or Nazi Germany (although less so), will develop, and progress. Of cource, I didn't say that we will have a state the same as in 1984, but that sort of supression....

I assure you, the people 'for' the war outnumber those against by roughly 3 to 1.

Dont bother trying to argue, the facts are clear

he's been institutionalised... tell me in practice how individualism however small cannot exist in a highly autocracised society...

i didn't say it's just a story - though it is a story

You should probably read up on Orwell's life... he was dismayed by how the Soviets had manipulated Marxist doctrine and were no longer ideologically Marxists...

a book is just a book - it doesn't hold all the answers