Sayonara

The US Government sponsored Hussein's rise to power, not the UK. Can we all please stop referring to him by his first name? He's not some cuddly uncle.

The relevance is that it will be a private and recognised war between Iraq and the US (and probably the UK too, thanks for that Tony), instead of joint intervention by the UN, and you will not receive anywhere near as much support or co-operation from your allies.

I just saw that and it made me laugh out loud. The fastest way to get killed by a US Helicopter Gunship is to try and look like an Australian soldier or a Red Cross medical center.

Nobody has successfully dealt with these points yet. Or are you unwilling to face the reality now it's staring you in the face?

No, it's not. That's the point of this thread, you dribbling loon. And even if you can't get your head around the fact that America has rules to play by, Blike asked if the invasion was morally justifiable, which is what the rest of us normal people are trying to discuss. The fact that you don't understand does not mean there is not a coherent process behind this. My feelings and opinions on this situation are by no means strange or unique, so you aren't going to get anywhere by pointing at me and shouting "pinko commie bastard" I'm afraid, as I expect you would if you really thought you were "losing". Sad really.I'm not "just mad at the world" thank-you very much. I'm mad at the US administration, and you should be too. I very much doubt you have looked into the history of the US's interference in Iraq as I suggested. What makes you think that anybody wants to ignore Hussein? Can I make this quite clear to you all right now - FEELING THAT AN INVASION BY THE USA IS IMMORAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU SUPPORT HUSSEIN OR WANT TO IGNORE THE PROBLEM. There seems to be this culture of black-and-white thought in America, 'if you're not with us you're against us', clear divisions. Maybe that's why you keep getting your asses kicked - you refuse to acknowledge the grey that makes up 99.9% of the world political and diplomatic arena. But, if you want to continue playing the "lol ure gay lol" card, or the "you don't support Bush therefore you love Saddam" card, you go ahead. You go right ahead and spout shit like you did in that last post, and I'll delete your crap on sight.

Zarkov may have been a certifiable lunatic.

You're a fucking moron. You've already demonstrated in other politics threads that you don't have a clue what's going on and you continue to uphold the trend with avid enthusiasm. Everything else you posted there was irrelevant. Ooooh very clever. Unfortunately you still haven't explained how an invasion without the second resolution will be legal, or how any invasion will be morally justified.

I explained the pole shift mechanism and why it couldn't have happened 3600 years ago several times, but like all good pseudoscientists he ignored the information. Remember though, this is the guy who believed a website dedicated to pole shift survival - one which recommended pitching a tent somewhere high up. Let's hope that's what he does if the pole ever does shift. Has anybody thought about what we'll say if Adam turns out to be right?

NO they did not violate the NPT. They announced they were bowing out from the treaty in the same week that they turned on a nuclear power station. This is perfectly legal and up to them. Pogo, some thoughts: * Attacking Bush's policy on Iraq does not mean that one supports Hussein. You can't just cry "If you're not with us you're against us" in a situation as complex as this and hope that sorts things out. * France jumped on Russia's bandwagon, not the other way around. * Don't assume Tony Blair's promises to be analagous with the support of Britain. Polls show 70% of Britons oppose going to war, and Blair only has 11% support in his own cabinet.

We're going off-topic in a major thread again. We're discussing faf's comments instead of the questions asked in the first post. This is probably worthy of two threads imo, as both discussions are very interesting.

O.....kay... Have you read that article LuTze linked to yet?

Is he aware that Iraq aren't on the Security Council?

If the US invades Iraq without UN sanctioning they will be committing an illegal act. This will make you terrorists. Furthermore, it will create a state of war legitimising any of Hussein's counterattacks. For America to lay aside the ideals it has subscribed to for so long simply because it is impatient for the UN to come to a decision is ludicrous. The message Bush is sending out is "We are Amercia. We can attack anyone, at any time, for any reason".

We may well also ask "and this justifies unsanctioned military action how....?"

No. It would still be 'guilty by association', which is a pretty lame accusation from a country that claims to be civilised. Of course, if Iraq actually attacked you then I'm sure you'd have full UN support in any retaliatory efforts. However since they don't appear to be planning an invasion of the US any time soon it must be obvious why GWB's motives are being called into question. Worldwide. Possibly why you guys in the US haven't seen or heard them (j/k) It's not very fair to sideline the ongoing efforts of organisations such as Amnesty International and their supporters just because it suits your argument. If your troops aren't there, it won't happen. And you don't have to be there. So it will be your fault. The key is to not invade. Absolutely. But the US was looking for a quick fix when they helped install him as dictator, and now he's stopped playing ball you're looking for a quick fix to remove him again. It's about time the US learned that some issues outside its borders can't be fixed by hurling ammo until the problem goes away.

Based on his current behaviour, and his apparent lack of respect for non-US lives, I can honestly see Bush waiting until the majority of the NK army is in one place and then just nuking them. Sounds appalling but to be quite frank judging by what I've seen of his diplomatic and tactical insight so far it would not surprise me in the least if that was his solution. That's the impression your president gives people outside the US, and in turn that's why you're stomping off to 'war'.

And you still support this war, morally, politically and strategically? FOR SHAME.

Is he talking about the god-awful film, or does his cult believe Nibiru wears its core outside its surface like all good planets do? TAKE ME TO THE LIGHTSHIP! <-- Comedy Genius

My opinion is based on the fact that I find Bush and Blair's claims to be about as trustworthy as Hussein's. I consider this to be a sensible stance. I'm not going to be drawn into a protracted argument over whether or not Iraq has WOMD, and whether or not it should use them, because it's not relevant to the questions Blike originally asked.

As far as we've been told. Not necessarily, and let's not forget that if there were it might not be in Coalition interests to declare that they found it. So would I if invasion were being threatened. Don't take what you are told for granted.

You're assuming he didn't use up all his weapons in the last war, that they weren't dumped at sea or sold to another country, and that he had stockpiles in the firstplace.

Yeah right. "Prove your weapons don't exist. And while you're at it, debunk God, the Tooth Fairy and Space Snails." Easier said than done.

Women of the Mekong Delta.

"Being against war" Is not the same as... "Believing Iraq has no WOMD" And certainly not the same as... "Supporting Saddam" If Iraq does deploy biological or chemical weapons against our coalition forces, then it does not justify the attack in any way. As Skye says, it just makes us even more stupid for going to war when we should be sorting out our past errors through more civilised means. The relationship between Al Quaeda and Iraq is not relevant to whether this war is justified or morally sound. Period. That rather depends on how much damage we do and the results we get out of it. Look at Afghanisatan. Once again we devastate the country and blow up civilian buildings, plus the obligatory US planes bombing Red Cross aid centers etc, and how many terrorists did we kill? Remember how terrorism died at the end of that war? Oh no it didn't did it. As far as these 'high ranking defectors' go I'm beginning to trust them less and less. I suggest some torture.

It's even more likely to be under the ice on Europa.