War, Yes or No?
 

What do you think? I'll go with the 4th option

4th option!!!

The fourth one, definitley.

You can't go attacking a country, just 'in case' they attack you first.

4th option for me as well. I dont wanna see any more war between countries, theres enough turmoil in the world as it is. Not to mention the effects it has on the people who have to serve in the armed forces during this time and the civilians casualties it could cause.

i say yes to war in this case. i think people who hark on about killing innocent Iraqi's seem to forget that Saddam isn't exactly the most humanitarian guy around. We're now at the poitn where we can goto war and for the most part keep civilians out of the firing line. even if some do die i can honestly say that a few hundred lost lives is a small price to ask for liberation of a full country. yes iraqis may say they support saddam but i wonder wot they would say if they didnt fear for there lives there.

Another thing that bothers me is that I think alot of people are anti-war because they are afraid that it will bring more terror attacks to places like London and Washington. If ive ever seen such a pathetic reason for not standing up for somethign then this is it. It has nothing to do with a moral stance it is just plain cowardice. If terrorists have already destroyed the twin towers then they've been pushed over the edge that they have felt compelled enough to attack us.

These people do not think rationally. They kill indiscriminantly and Germany and France can't hide from the fact that wether they fight or not, sooner or later they WILL be attacked.

I know that pretty soon the UK's going to be hit and yeah i'm a little worried but i'd rather give them a good reason to hit us than sit back hoping they'll ignore us if we leave them alone.

If it's only Saddam what that all is about (and you write as if it was like that) then a war won't bring the solution. Why killing (and in the end war isn't anything else) other people if there's only one man to catch (and maybe to kill)? Why throwing bombs on places of that it's obvious that he isn't there? Why sending Armies to invade a country if there's only one person to find? Just imagine these pictures, imagine the cries and the silence after it, imagine the destoyed houses and everything else what'll remain at a hit place.
Maybe we will be attacked. Sooner or later every country has been attecked (and finally the USA, too) but is that a reason for doing the same (but I guess it'd be much worse) somewhere else? We wouldn't be any better and there'd be no chance to stop anything. If not finally anyone understands that someone has to give up and stop being revenged it'll always go on like that. And that's why I think that war will never be what this world needs. And as nowadays there is no war that can be won anymore it will only cause more blood than there is anyway.
Someone once said that people now have nuclear weapons but a brain that still works like it was in the stone age. And if you think about it you'll notice that this guy wasn't that wrong and that you can't except anyone from that - not yourself, not me and not anyone else.

i went with the second option

id let the UN inspectors do their job before we do anything else

Look at my avatar

i went with the fourth :wink:

Why doesn't option 4 read Saddam destroying world peace? In my view he has a greater role to play in a peaceful outcome than G.W and his Allies. Are you guys anti-war or anti-bush? It sounds to me like your making Saddam a martyr! If G.W was the war pig some of you believe he is wouldn't he have started dropping bombs already? There are 2 sides to this argument, and for mine if Saddam starts telling the truth and co-operating with the UN then this whole thing will end peacefully.