Should we fight? A liberal's view.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Yes, just like the Euros have always done: appeasing the aggressors and blaming their allies.

I'm sorry, I must have missed when Iraq attacked or threatened to attack someone post-Gulf War.

[Docfeelgood]

I was going to spill out what I felt but changed my mind.


I am comming to the realization that it doesant really matter what I say and think.

kinda like voices lost in the wind.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Kontiki

I'm sorry, I must have missed when Iraq attacked or threatened to attack someone post-Gulf War.

So you were not talking about the last Gulf War?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

In the past few days, my opinion of war with Iraq has shifted to ALMOST that of Ron. I still feel that the US and Britain should not go it alone, and should have the support of the UN, and I would also say that if UN inspectors can be allowed back in, that is the best option.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


So you were not talking about the last Gulf War?

Not in that particular instance. I was responding to DD when he said that Europe should be the main hawks. I assumed he was referring to attacking Iraq now.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Should we fight? A liberal's view.

I('m dead tired so sorry if I didn't read all of it.

But that

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
However I hate dictators with a venom that borders on the psychotic.

is a very good attitude

[chequita guevara]

How many more Iraqis need to die for your enjoyment?

[C0ckney]

i guess i'm the exact opposite of laz, i was for for the falklands (well i would have been if it wasn't 2 years before my birth..) and the gulf war. in the first case british territory was invaded, the people there were british and wanted to remain so, what objection people could of had to protecting what was ours is beyond me, but there you go. the second case was the international community protecting a weaker nation from the aggression of a stronger one.

option #1 is not like the 1930s, saddam tried to take his czechoslovakia and was given a bloody nose for his trouble by us.

for me it comes down to: is iraq a threat to britain (or america)?

and well, it looks like it isn't. to say that iraq sponsors terrorism is arguable at best, there hasn't been any real evidence to link iraq with 9-11, how many of the hijackers came from iraq (0) and how many from saudi arabia (15).

the second thing seems to be weapons of mass destruction. again, seems to be arguable at best, the much hyped report that was going prove that the iraqis had been naughty was really a damp squib, there was no 'smoking gun' and most of the stuff in there was already known.

there is no real evidence that saddam is a threat to the us or britain and until there is i wouldn't support invading iraq.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How many more Iraqis need to die for your enjoyment?

Come on Che, that's a horrible statement. I highly doubt that any of us enjoy the deaths of innocent civilians, and your suggestion of it is offensive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, EF. Especially Laz, who happens to hate killing of innocent civilians in any manner.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yep, EF. Especially Laz, who happens to hate killing of innocent civilians in any manner.

Ok, any SANE poster, of which Ron certainly is one of which he is certainly one...

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd like to see more of the evidence that Hussein is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction or harboring / collaborating with al-Qeada.

[orange]

Absolutely opposed to it

Our leaders talk talk talk about freedom and equality and liberal democratic governments, but when it's time to practice what we preach we throw it out the window because it doesn't apply.

If we want nations to do the right thing we should quit preaching and start leading by example. The only thing this war will accomplish is a heightened hatred for the United States in a part of the world that we desparately need to view us more favorably. If we would just step back and let the middle east figure things out for themselves, they'd eventually concentrate on their internal problems rather than their disgust with US-Britain treatment of the region...not only our undying support of Israel, but how we treat them as our 'oil *****'.

To compare Modern Iraq to 1930s Germany is laughable at best. He's too smart to do something large scale with what little he has, and more importantly, it is not our place to decide who may have what. Sure, you get nations like Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran...but where do we draw the line? Could we consider Egypt a rogue state, or Turkey? Pakistan, India? What about France?

There is absolutely no reason to invade Iraq, and there was no reason to support Kuwait in the Gulf War either, but at very least we were able to point to a smoking gun.

I would lose any scrap of national pride I have for my country if the United States were to strike first with popular support.

[Drake Tungsten]

there was no reason to support Kuwait in the Gulf War either, but at very least we were able to point to a smoking gun.

This may be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. No reason to support Kuwait? I guess Iraq's waging of an agressive war against another state in blatant violation of international law doesn't qualify as a reason to you...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by orange
What about France?

See my other post

I would lose any scrap of national pride I have for my country if the United States were to strike first with popular support.

What about with UN support?