Matzi

I don't know what your media tell you, but actually Iraq hasn't done anything "bad" in the last 12 years. Does this mean nothing at all? Other countries, e.g. Israel, have attacked others. You still support them.

Finally? Iraq has not been mentioned for years... And with 9/11 you could certainly account for war with every country... Wonderful world we are living in...

No, I am not saying that. Where did I say that?

12 years is of course a long time. But why bother after 12 years? I mean Hussein throw the inspectors out of the country some years ago (somewhen in the late 90s, right?) That's quite a long time ago as well. Why attacking Iraq now and accusing them of not having disarming, why not then?

ok, thanks, now i've got it. Though, it does not really express my opinion. UNlimited time is no solution in my eyes. That's a bit too nice...

Good? Hm... Invading many countries variously chosen by Bush...

That's another problem (embarrassing to admit). I mean, I had French for two years, afterwards I had to give it up, I did not mind. I don't really like that language (Latin and English are much better), so I don't know for sure what it means...:dunno:

Yeah, it's probably going to be the candidate after Iraq and North Corea...

I stated one... see my post on top...

I am not either, as I stated above, but I used the one closest to my option...

To get involved into this disuccsion myself: Such a discery would change my attitude towards war. Of course, this would be evidence for Hussein's lying, I do not disagree with that. But war is - as I see it - never a solution, unless a country is attacked and has defend itself. By the way, why have only so few people voted above? Come on...

I think this term was chosen deliberately to leave any option open.

Seems so...

Jared Diamon's "Guns, Germs and Steel". That would be my recommendation.

I share that suspicion.

I think there is an option missing at the poll: that this ultimatum posed by Bush is absolutely not justified.

Good question! First destruction of Iraq, then rebuilding the country. Not very rational ... it's Bush who wants to do that Ok, I think, that would allow the US to have the advantages of the country. I mean, freeing them from Saddam, destroying the country, which could not be avoided due to the aim, rebuilding the country. What do you think is Iraq doing with its oil afterwards? It's all strategy...

Ok, thanks for your information fafalone. But one thing I don't understand: Why do you accept such a decision passed by the UH and on the other, why do you not accept the newly established international court? Why claiming the UN is a joke and in the same post using them as basis for your own argumentation?

I tried to ignore you. But this statement is actually gone too far, I think. By saying this you disrespect every single nation existing. This is the most horrible think to be done. How can you do that? You really think you could exist alone? You really think you can do what your nation - and only your nation or better one damn alcoholic happening to be your government - wants? That is what I would call dictatorship. Saddam is restricting his to his country, you apparently aren't. So, tell me, where does it state? Which law says so? Which judge passed this verdict? What would say if other countrys' aircrafts fly over your country to protect you from your president?

And thousands of Americans would do so for their president (and did for their presidents).

Again, what are your damn aircrafts doing there? Jealous of the USA? Wonder how that works (especially now)...

I have not lived in Iraq, but you seem to have. I think there might at least be the possibility that some mothers in Iraq do actually like there country and their system. This - of course - seems unlikely due to Saddams dictatorship. I mean, dictatorship is worse, of course. But this does not justify a war, I think. I mean, the Iraqi mothers would certainly be happy that you freed them after a war - if they survived. Civil victims can not only be accounted for by Saddam forcing them to act as human shield. No, instead the bombs killing, mother, children and the elderly are still yours, and they are not that perfect in destroying only their programmed aim, as seen in Afganistan.

So, blike, what is your opinion now? Bush starts war right now, would you be with him or not? To the war supporters: Who of you will go to war, I mean, personally? That's just a thing I am interested in. PS: Thanks, to Sayonara for making the situation clear. I think some people here do not accept an opinion between bush and saddam.

I am really wondering who someone actually can feel threatened by Saddam. Especially when you live thousands of miles away, on a different continent. I mean, to all of you who actually feel threatened, did you see Saddam around your house? Did he actually threaten you? How do you feel threatened? Explain this to me, that's something I'm still not able to understand. Of course, Saddam might have biological weapons. These are dangerous if they were used. But others have biological and nuclear weapons as well. These also include the US. So I have to feel threatened as well or what?

Yeah, I think so, too. Actually, I'm aksing myself quite often when I hear some "American" arguments whether there is any logic or any reasonable thinking behind it. National security is of course important. This is certainly valid for every country. However, it's still national security and not international security, as the US - in my view - seem to take it. I mean, why do they have to march into Iraq or into Korea (both will have a devasting impact)? Because they have been threatened...