Who wants to go to war with Iraq?

[jakesi]

And why?

[Peachy]

As the events of September 11 highlight, for the first-world superpowers to overlook nebulous activity in disaffected Middle Eastern quarters can lead to outbursts of mass death and destruction on our doorstep. We do not want the children of tomorrow to grow up in a climate of terror, and I believe it is for the elimination of terror from our world that a clampdown on Iraq's nuclear potential is a necessary thing. Loss of life, however, both American and Middle Eastern, should by no means be attendant upon that need.

[tracymort]

i've just had a baby (now 17 days old) and i am scared s***less there will be a war! Surely we should have a say in it! not just those who who have access to nuclear bunkers!

[couchy]

Is it war with Iraq or war with Saddam? I agree that some US policies have bitten them on the ass but the only people who are responsible for Sept 11th are the terrorists and their backers. The US do have weapons of mass destruction but they are not launched at the whim of a dictator. Saddam is a threat to world peace, he has a poor human rights record and a dreadful moustache. I say take him out.

[andy hughes]

Time and again, when newspapers report cases of assault, the defendent is quoted giving a version of "I though he was going to hit me, so I hit him first...." which is seen as no defence, and a guity verdict is given. It's interesting therefore that when such an approach is used in international politics, the soon-to-be 'defendent' is looking for support. If it's not acceptable for individuals to behave towards each other in this way, how much less acceptable is it for a democratic country to behave in such a manner? Maybe I'm being over-simplistic, but trying to drum up support for such aggression on the basis of what 'might happen' seems a dangerously paranoid way to play politics with the lives of innocent people, of whom I am just one.

[smithers]

Dear Albert, I agree with Couchy that Saddam is a Maddas. It is he who flaunts the UN at the suffering of his own people, especially the Kurds (UN Sanctions do hurt the poor while he lives in luxury). If he really cared about his own people and had nothing to hide he would let the UN in and get international aid to prevent humanitarian disasters to his people. He (and his sons) are the only problem that the UK/USA have with Iraq. Although I do agree oil reserves would also be a fortunate consequence of releiving this idiot from power but this is not the primary reason for getting rid of this one man.

[couchy]

Einstein, Thank you, I am a bright guy, I do know the difference between what Im supposed to believe and what really happens in the world, sometimes you can get so involved with looking for/at different angles that you miss what is right under your nose.

[couchy]

America has every right to protect itself from an apparent threat. Saddams weapons can be used at his discretion, I understand that George cannot just lauch a chemical attack because he feels like it. Sure Saddam has a lot of oil, thats a bonus. Your speculating that the oil is the driving force. Its never going to be like Star Trek is it?

[briscombe]

I dont, they have nuclear bombs, inoscent people could be killed. it isn't worth all this.

[slinkywizard]

Anybody know what the people of Iraq want?

[blackfive]

A common thread which seems to run through this debate is that George Bush Snr somehow failed during the Gulf War in not toppling Saddam Hussein. This is simply not the case! The allies who participated in the Gulf War were following a strict set of UN resolutions, all of which concerned removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The removal from office of Saddam was definitely NOT one of their mandates. As for what the Iraqi people think, I suppose the only answer to that is "what did the German people think in 1939"?

[petemcdonald]

Einstein, you claim that some respondants to the posted question are naive yet your only real response is that the US and UK want war because of...............wait for it...........OIL. Grow up. There's a bit more too it then that. If you want to act intelligent (as you try and demonstrate) at least show it through your answers.

[petemcdonald]

Einstein, you also state: "The FBI has managed to produce no evidence formally linking Al-Qaida's activities to Iraq, though Saddam doubtless sympathises with them". First of all, Saddam Hussain praised the actions of the hijackers of 9/11 and secondly, he helps finance Al-Qaida. You're merely one of many people who have a problem with the US being the world's superpower. And don't be a prat calling the UK 'The US's poodle'

[docklands77]

If we establish a friendly regime in Iraq, we won't have to dance to the tune of Saudi Arabia so much and we can withdraw most western troops from there. Has anyone else considered this. The status quo dictates that we stay friendly with Saudi because of their oil.

[Sky]

Bush, because he's thick.