UN Headquarters in Iraq bombed...

I really can't see how anyone would think this is going to stop terrorism. I have never even heard such a thing around here.

Speak to Jedijovi on backstage....

Well, then I don't think she speaks for the majority. Like I said, I have discussed this war with a great deal of my peers in the US, and not once has anyone ever mentioned that this would actually stop terrorism. That doesn't make any sense.

Lets face it, the US ignored Osama and look what happened. I wouldn't want to make the same mistake twice.

Osama is head of a terrorist network though... he has proved to be dangerous against Western targets. U can't put everyone in the same boat. A huge amount of the ppl arguing on backstage... a lot of Bush's & Blairs speech's - right down to trying to prove existence of a terrorist network suggested this was a big reason for the war.

It may have been the reason they tried to 'sell' the war, because thats what they have to do these days. In the past, the governments were elected to do our dirty work, now they also have to account for everything they do (not saying thats a bad thing...)

As to my point about the UN only saying 'stop' so many times...no, I wasn't referring to WMD. I was referring to the fact that the country and it's leader had stuck it's fingers up to the UN resolutions repeatadly. How many times do you let that go by? Would you rather just say '**** it, lets forget about Iraq"? In which case other countries will follow that example. Well ok, why not. **** it, lets let anyone and everyone have access to whatever the hell they like, and carry on in whatever way they choose. If that means that certain countries train terroists, and then arm them with weapons, fine....is that what you are saying?

I know I'm in the minority of people, or so it seems, and believe that not only was action against Iraq needed, but a good thing. We are fed propoganda from both sides, and you choose to believe what you want. I have yet to be shown any infomation that makes me think we did the wrong thing.

War is never pretty, and innocents will always die as a result. BUT, until the human race develops to a stage where we can all get along (NEVER gonna happen by the way) then it's also a necessary evil.

I wouldn't be dumb enough to put myself in a situation where I might be forced to choose between my life and the life of someone who just "might" pull something.

And I don't really remember hearing that Saddam dropped bombs on people he was trying to "save" indiscriminately. Usually when he killed people, it was for some offense that they'd committed, real or imaginary. Either that or he wanted something that they had. Wrong as his actions were he was always either taking something or punishing someone, and I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time disputing that. He didn't wander about his country, blathering about "liberating" people, or telling his own people that he was on a holy mission from God. Saddam was a little more honest than our own president in that respect. He killed because he wanted to, not because he thought some higher power in his head told him to. He didn't make weepy, patriotic, wipe-your-eyes-with-your-flag speeches, and incite his country to panic with bogus terror alerts.

Oppression is oppression, no matter who's boot is grinding into who's face. US oppression isn't any better or any more righteous than Saddam's oppression. We don't make people swim through garbage, I'll give you that. We break into people's houses, round up the men, put bags over their heads, and march them out of their own houses, not caring that they won't be able to provide for their families the next day while we beat and question them. We shoot people for trying to drive down their own streets. We inflicted horrible injuries on the populace, then turn most of them away when they come to us for medical attention. We shoot reporters who are merely trying to show the world the truth, that truth being that we are little better than the evil people we replaced.

Here's a little scenario for all you pro-war people: Imagine what would happen if the "clean" war we fight, the war where we try and avoid civilian casualties, the war where we make clean "decapitating" strikes, was unleashed on our own country. The White House, The Pentagon, The Lincoln Monument, The Senate, just about every military base in the country, every place the president slept in the past month, wiped out in less than 3 weeks. No power to large parts of the country, in the middle of the hottest summer on record. No running water to large areas. Then the invading army has the arrogance to tell us they were doing it for our good, and that they freed us from our oppressive government. No matter who our leader was I guarantee we'd be the ones running trucks into buildings then, and I doubt we'd have much sympathy for who we hurt in the process. We were scared spitless when 19 guys ran 3 planes into the Pentagon and Trade Towers. Now imagine the scenario described above. That's terrorism. That's what we rained down on innocent Iraqi civilians, in the name of "liberating" them. That's what you're defending.

Adrian

So thats your idea of a good democracy?? How about presenting the facts as they r.... Transparency & all that.

So how many times have other countires broken resolutions?? The US r notorious for it. They broke one by going to war. Iraq haven't made any malicious / threatening moves. The sanctions were their punishment for breaking the resolutions & they worked. & now u r supporting the terrorist theory by saying they do train & support terrorism?? Hasn't this new event shown u that the war has actually encouraged it?

Errmm The attack on the embassy? The conditions in Iraq?? The lack of any of the reasons for war being backed up? The current guerilla war?? The only thing that is going to plan is companies getting their nice contracts!

It would only have been necessary in this case if Iraq were threatening anyone, or if its ppl were in a clear & present danger akin to the danger they r in in Liberia or Zimbabwe.

Adrian....I'm not sure there are many people who are 'pro' war as such. Just because you are not anti-war doesn't mean that you are stock piling hand grenades and chanting 'kill, kill.'

I'm not that keen on paying my taxes, they are too bloody high...but I see the need for it, does that make me pro-tax? No, it just means that, having weighed up the other options, I see the need for tax. It's the same with some wars. Given the other options, I see no other viable alternative. I don't believe that makes me pro war.

It's a good thing that you have a healthy distruste of your government, and what you are told, but don't make the mistake of believing all the anti-war propaganda either. Take the time to read both sides of any story.

No. I didn't put forward a view about a 'good' democracy. I also didn't say it was a bad thing that these days governments have to be more accountable.

The thing is though, that the facts can't always be presented with such openess. None of us know the full details, so it's all speculation. But sometimes revealing the whole story could compromise the source of the knowledge. It may not have been the case in this instance - who knows. The fact is, we have elected a group of people to do our work for us. It's physically impossible for everyone in the country to have their wishes accounted for. In the UK, we have over 50 million people. Is your idea of a good democracy to make everyone vote for every decision? It's hard enough to get people out once every 5 years as it is, let alone every day...that's why we vote the government in.

No they didn't. All they did was make the common people of Iraq suffer. It made not a jot of difference to the leaders, who were selling oil illegally, and pocketing the profits.

Well, that's true. Although it depends on which set of propaganda you believe as to whether they would do so in the future.

The post war problems are not good information that the war was a mistake. They are indications that the aftermath isn't being sorted out quick enough, or in the right way. Your right that there are many companies making a fat profit now...but that's nothing new. After all...France - one of the biggest anti-war countries, were making a huge profit from deals with Iraq, and stood to make even more. Which explains why they were against it in the first place ....no?

Anyway...talking politics is always fun, and it's very refreshing to be on a board where this goes on...unlike bonjovi.com...where the hottest topic for debate is the size of Jon's arse. As long as it's all pleasant with no slaggin off, I'm all for it. Opinions are great, but it should be remembered that you can't force your opinion on someone else, and you can't say that someone else's opinion is wrong - it's all about perspective.

No - but if parliament knew the facts, it'd be a start.... If the war was so justified - why all the lies / false documents etc..?? Surely it would have spoken for itself. I believe that this wasn't discussed as a democracy should (between parliament) but the decision was made & it was a race to use anything they could to justify it.

Well - it depends which viewpoint u look at it. If u look at it from the viewpoint of WMD (the legal reason for the war), then they worked. However the Iraqi ppl were no better off for it. But were better off than they r now. Even so - I don't believing imposing your way of life on ppl is right. The Crusades & Hitler to mention just 2 have shown us that.

But starting a war on pure unfounded speculation is pretty irresponsible. They haven't even made threatening moves against us in the past.

One of the main reasons I was against the War, was because of the way it was promoted, the fact it was rushed into & the motives it seems it was done for, backed up by the lack of post war plans / effort. & also the fact that the reasons at that time weren't backed up & still aren't. They could have waited - there was no need to rush into it & hence why I think the war was wrong.

Well - its good to have someone else who can contribute in a mature way!