And I don't think that there is any way to not go to war.

Possibly there isn't. But the weapons inspectors still haven't finished their work, so the decision about going to war should be put off, at the very least, until they have. That is, if the U.S. and co. wants to give the impression that they are not eager to go to war, as they say they aren't. (Sending 130000 troops to the Persian Gulf isn't helping this image either.)

Sadam has frequently disobeyed the UN, the treaty after Operation Desert Storm strictly said that Iraq MUST disarm!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US disobeying the UN in going ahead with plans for war without their backing?

And here weapons inspectors have found warheads designed to deliver chemical weapons that were not declared, notes and work from Iraqi scientists on their nuclear weapons program.

Yes, they were DESIGNED to deliver chemical weapons. There was nothing in them when they were found. This, combined with their age (12 years old, if memory serves) and the fact that they were found in a disused storage facility suggests that they were just plain forgotten about. Plus there were only four of them, and while any chemical warheads at all are bad news, that's not really enough to conduct a war with. Saddam may also possess PLANS for nuclear weapons, but this does not mean for certain that he is actually building or going to build any. It suggests so strongly, I admit, but if you are going to war you have to be certain.

Sadam has defied the UN countless times, and he will continue to do so because he knows that the majority of the nations there don't want to fight.

Kinda like the US government, huh?

Sadam has used chemical and biological weapons against his own people? You have no problem with that? You have no problem with him sponsoring terrorism? What about all the other human rights violations? Are you just going to let him torture his own people?

Please, no straw men, I get hayfever. I never said that I had no problem with that. America didn't though, once. In 1972, Saddam signed a treaty of “friendship and co-operation” with Moscow. The U.S. didn’t like this, and neither did most of the western world, so when, in 1974, he began a program to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, we were falling over ourselves to oblige. To quote “The Pelican”, a university newspaper: “An American company supplied him with plans for building chemical weapons plants, the British sold his regime biological and chemical weapons protective suits and the French sold him helicopters and a nuclear reactor. The West sought to wean his administration off its relationship with the Soviet Union.”

And when Saddam attacked Iran in 1979, the US government supplied intelligence and weapons TO BOTH SIDES, though the dealings with Iran were kept quiet. It was only after the conflict, when Saddam owed the U.S. US$65000000000+ that they “became aware” of his human rights record and treatment of the Kurds.

(All information for the response to this particular quote was obtained from the article “Acid Ba’ath” by Giovanni Torre, The Pelican, Edition 8, Volume 73, a publication from the Student Guild of the University of Western Australia.)

Now all we are asking for just a little support from our "friends". NATO and the countless other treaties we have make so that an attack on one is an attack on all! Do you just expect the United States to forget about 9/11? We said in the beginning, when we went to Afghanistan that this would be long and would take a lot of time. And yet now, barely a year gone by, most of our allies are backing down.

9/11? Hey, yeah, what happened with that? Wasn't the U.S. trying hunt down Osama Bin Laden? But no-one could find him? And then round about the same time, the U.S. government started pressuring Iraq to disarm with very little proof that they hadn't already? Funny that...

What is it going to take to get the world to realize that he has to be dealt with? Is it going to take a dirty bomb in Berlin? Or a small nuclear device in Rome?

I hope the rest of the world isn't THAT hard to convince. But all the evidence the U.S. has so far are the aforementioned chemical warheads and some aerial photos of installations they "believed" to contain weapons of mass destruction (these are the photos that the U.S. used to instigate the weapons inspections in the first place). The installations photographed have hence been investigated and found not to contain any such weapons.

The simple fact is that Sadam has to be dealt with. There is no way around it. I'm not advocating that turn Iraq into a giant parking lot (we have the ability to though), bleed the oil dry and then use Iraq as cannon fodder agasint North Korea, or whomever we go against next, but I'm just saying that this has to be done, and if everyone keeps saying "well it isn't our problem." then he wins. It is for the greater good that he must be dealt with.

If Saddam HAS to be dealt with, then why hasn't he been before now? He's been an evil bastard for a long time now. And I don't consider the Gulf War as having "dealt" with him, because he is still alive, free, and in power.

Frankly if this is the way the majority of the world sees the United States, I advocate that the US withdraws from the UN, withdraws from the rest of world and enter isolationism. I'm sick of the United States always having to be the one out in front.

A whole country going into a sulk? I'd buy tickets to see that.

Next time you get your oil cut off, or someone detonates a car bomb in your nation, don't come to us for help, and see how you like when we say "I don't see how that's my problem." Because that is what the world is doing right now.

Well, even if I personally don't, Australia IS supporting your country. That was what I was objecting to in the first place: The deployment of 150 SAS troops and potentially 14 F/A-18 Hornet jets. And you have the support of the British government as well.


Patternweaver fan-club member

Rule? You better believe I do.