is anyone here pro-war

[5029]

does anyone think that it is right?

[rekstout]

Me - see previous responses in Qs below

[comloulou]

Ditto. I might not like it much but it seems like the right thing to do. p.s Im pro- the current conflict not 'war' for the sake of it.

[football]

To ignore history is to be blind in one eye: to forget history is to be blind in both eyes. Were the Americans obliged to have given Christmas presents to Japan in December 1941? If you are being stabbed, at what time do you react? After being stabbed many times or just before the point of death? Pacifism is the evil of inaction. One mans terrorist is another mans 'freedom fighter': Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine, Washington the sniper from the car, they were all terrorists. They were not 'Freedom Fighters'. Terrorism is going down to the shop and not knowing if you are to return alive. I go about my lawful business, so why can't they. Some warmongering dictators have words to the effect 'We have many homeless, we are hungry', responding to their people by building up stocks of arms and expecting aid at the same time.

[5029]

Interesting point football, but what point were you making? I support comloulou's view.

[5029]

Thank you for your contribution, ned, but I was actually asking who was PRO-war, not who was ANTI-war

[comloulou]

sorry to be ignorant football but I dont get it.

[darth vader]

are you going to form an opinion football, or just quote euphamsims etc..?
The death star idea never worked so i'm a complete pacifist. Make love not war, it's free.

[Miss Zippy]

Stop picking on football you guys when he's trying to answer a question!! I'm having a really bad hair day today but even I can see what he's trying to say :-)

[5029]

well then miss zippy would you mind explaining it to us? which side is he taking?

[Worker]

I don't really understand Football's argument, but that's probably because I'm thick. My gut feeling though is that although violence disgusts me, sometimes it is the only answer. If I were to come across a mugging of an old lady or of anyone come to that, I'd like to think I'd get stuck in - and I wouldn't bother about minimum force either.

[Miss Zippy]

I don't think it's a question of not 'supporting the removal of maddaS' (sic), rather the way in which it has been done. If Saddam had attacked us first, then although I don't think two wrongs make a right, I could then see a justification for war. Let's not forget that the original mandate for this war was the location and destruction of the WoMD that Iraq purportedly have (which have yet to be found - call me naive but surely it's pretty difficult to covertly transport and hide these sort of things?). It's only when we were actually in Iraq and public support was still lacking that the spin doctors came out with the 'we're here to save the Iraqi people' line. I'm delighted as anyone they are 'free', but it has been at a huge human cost and I've yet to be convinced that there are no hidden agendas. Oh and what's happened about the Al Qaeda link, that's all gone conveniently quiet hasn't it? P.S. I'm simple at the best of times but thought that Football was simply saying he's pro-war cos the Iraqui people should be free to go about their business as we do and 'pacifism is the evil of inaction' etc. etc.

[blackfive]

Regarding the poser of whether Iraq has WMD, let's not forget that we are talking about a country the size of France whose ruling hierachy have had twelve years and billions of oil dollars to effectively hide whatever WMDs they may have possessed.