No-one denies that the US has sold stuff to Iraq. Granted, so have many other countries, but it is ludicrous to suggest there is no evidence.

Yes, they should get shot if the alternative is killing civilians. Soldiers put their lives on the line. If we didn't want our soldiers to get killed, we shouldn't have started a war which would inevitably get messy.

The UN has made a number of decisions, the most important being not to go to war (not that I really care what the UN thinks either, to be honest). Anyway, tons of countries have WMD, including all of the countries presently invading Iraq. I don't see that a Republican government lead by a gaggle of fraudulent businessmen with oil interests has anything approaching the moral credibility required to police the volatile and unstable regions of the world. Additionally, the US has a very bad track record in bringing "liberation" to other parts of the world.

Alex

Great, so America has to be in the right because it isn't any worse than Iraq. America has hardly set an example of playing by the rules in international politics, but it now justifies its war on the basis that Iraq is breaking them. Oh, and on various non-existant links with Al-Quaida (last time I checked, Bin Laden and Saddam weren't exactly best friends. Typical of American propaganda to portray them as one and the same thing just because they're both "evil").

Incedentally, I am as suspicous of Russia and France's motives in vetoing the resolution as you are.

Alex

You've got to be kidding right? Under the Geneva Convention it is totally legal to shoot soldiers using civilians as shields. Now you could make a moral argument against this but there is no basis for a legal argument.

The amount of weapons sold to Iraq from the US was small by comparison to the latter countries. If you look at the current Iraqi armament they consist largely of Russian weapons and materials. The t-72, the Al Harith, a long-range sea-skimming missile are Russian, the French have sold Mirage fighter planes (as well as selling them to the South Africans in the 70's and 80's, despite SA's human rights violations. They also sold them to Israel, then several other Arab countries), so they have been doing a bit of arm's dealing themselves. Yet only the US is knocked for weapons sales.
I admit that the US is by far the largest, but that's the pot calling the kettle black. Other countries regardless of the amount of weapons sold, or the revenue gained should be responsible. However it's the anti-American criticism again, it's the trend. It's funny how the papers and contracts showing up in Iraq are German, French and Russian bill of ladens, not US. Can't say the US is covering them up either because most were found by the British.

Yes some countries do. But most are responsible with how they handle them. You don't see the US, UK, and French gassing their own people now do you? I can't speak for the Chinese or Russians on human rights violations, but their record is far better then Iraq's. If Hussien treat's his own people that way, what happens when he get's the capbility to hit DC, or London. Imagine London and Manchester up in flames because of some nutjob, and we could have stopped him. He is a ticking timebomb, and was offered the chance to leave. Remember when Neville Chamberlian ignored a crazy rambling anti-semtic Austrian? 6.5 million Jews and 20 million Russians dead was the result of "diplomacy". And unfortuantly, Germany will live that for many generations, because of a madman and his cronies. I hope you understand my point of view.

The US aren't your enemies llama_meme (despit public opinion of the general populace of Europe), and have always had good relations with the UK. I don't agree with everything our govt. does (cavorting and regularly speaking to IRA members being one thing I disagree with), 90% of it I do.

One might argue it's the "oil hungry" republicans in office. I like republicans. I am registered republican, but....I am not 100% conservative (I am in the middle really). They just care about the US first as they should. Did you know illegal immigrants used to be able to obtain a drivers license in Virginia. Thanks to the Democrats "I don't want to hurt anyones feelings" methodology. A Republican senator put a stop to that. As well they should (and people in Virginia can't drive anyhow, illegal aliens on the road don't make it any better).

Being a man of leisure currently, I watch a lot of news.

There are a few organisations which are geared up for establishing a democratic Iraq, and perhaps one of the more credible I believe is called the Islamic Federation for a Democratic Iraq. They have already been approached numerous times (indeed 'lobbied') to establish talks with "American and British oil companies". They won't say who exactly, but there are already talks.

On that basis alone, and on the strength of Iraq's reserves, can anyone credibly say the wars not about oil?

Aneeway, that aside, I think we will see this war go on for a long time. I'm thinking in terms of months. My prediction is June at the earliest to resolve and secure Baghdad.

Zoiks.

hmmm... interesting. they can't quite seem to spell israel right...

I suppose I went a bit over the top, but whatever the legal issues, it's going to piss off the Iraqis. Anyway, is it legal to shoot the civilians?

America responsible with its weapons??? What about agent orange? What about the bombing of a shopping street in Baghdad?

Then your wild scaremongering will have been proved right.

I never said the US was my enemy. I disagree on the good relations point, though. I think relations have been pretty strained ever since the war of independece (not to deny that Britain has benefitted from American military assistance, etc.). Ironically, it was France that was much more supportive of America in its early years.

This is just "my country right or wrong" nonsense. And it's wrong. I doubt the Iraqis like being second on the list of concerns when it's their country being invaded.

Can't say I knew that. Who cares?

Alex

Who cares? I do. How would you like illegal immigrants with rights in your country. I am all for immigration, as long as it's legal.

The Iraqis are second to our needs, but their also second to Hussein's needs as well. Anyone who used to torture the Kurds by dipping them in big vats of acid, or electrocuting them to death is a humanitarians nightmare. The US has made a couple of mistakes with the market place. All in all (as I stated in an earlier post) the bombing has been so percise, food and relief has been able to get to most Iraqis civilians. Basra is the exception, but that's because there id RPG holed up there shooting their own civilians. So tell me who the bad guys are here. Not the US my friend.
I am sorry you feel Anglo-American relations are strained because of this. I have worked with members of the US and British govts. in the past. I have never encountered any animosity from them. I have to say we probably have a strong relation with them. With differences on this situation aside, Britain is our biggest ally (lets not forget WW1, WW2 since you want to bring up "old" news, we went to Europe and pretty much bailed the Brits out from under the German's boots. My opinion is the British fought extremely well, with tenacity and skill, however the Germans did as well. The Germans would have won without the US on your side). If Russia would have attacked the west in the 70's and 80's, the US and Britain would have taken the brunt of the fighting. So it saddens me to think you , and any other British wouldn't consider US-UK relations good. If you feel the only reason Britain is with us because of military needs, then I feel sorry for you.

Le't also not forget, Britain left India in shambles, basically caused the Arab- Israeli conflict with their mandate in 1948 causing Jewish uprising in Israel. Not to mention engaged in may military operations in Cambodia, Malay, Indonesia, and in South Africa (despite the world rejection of the racist government of the time) Britain also has the highest rates or mercenaries, and the most PMC's (Private Military Companies) specializing in "conflict analysis". I am sure the BBC and Sky forget to report those things though.

I am not going to point the the finger and play this "my country is better than your country". Both have very good points, and both have made terrible mistakes (Britains human rights records have some bad marks too). However since it's trendy to be anti-American you won't see our side of the story. I have no problem the British (my mother is from Bedfordshire), the Iraqi's (just Hussien and his cronies). I have problems with countries pointing the finger at us calling us bad and imperalist, yet have been dealing illegal arms and scientific help against UN resolution, and have the ordacity to point the finger at the US. "Oh your breaking UN resloutions, war is bad", meanwhile providing an evil dictator the means the spread is evil ways supplying him cruise missles, GPS jammers (so the US can't target military targets, we miss and hit civilians instead) and night vision tank equipment. All AGAINST UN resolution I might add.

Come on kid - you really expect to believe anybody that you work for the administration?
You can't even decide whether it's spelled Hussein or Hussien.
But then they might want to hit that Hussien guy and the whole thing is just a screw-up.Potatoe flashback.
Don't bother replying - I'm the hell out of here for the next couple of months.

Why does everything have to be turned into a good guys vs. bad guys argument with you? Of course Saddam is worse than Bush, but this doesn't make Bush's war right automatically. I agree that Iraq has to take a lot of the responsibility for civilian casualties, but the UK and US also have to take some of that responsibility because we started the goddamn war.

Well, it's debatable whether Germany could ever have beaten Russia in the East with or without US troops on the Western front, but I agree that American military assistance has been of great benefit to Britian over the years.

I don't think that, really.

I agree, most of my criticisms of America could also apply to the UK. I am just as against the UK's involvement in this war as America's.

I'm not anti-American. I love plenty of American things (the Simpsons especially ), and it's also worth noting that the best satire on Bush is American (Doonesbury is great). I can understand why trendy anti-Americans piss you off, but I'm not one of them.

Yeah, plenty of countries criticising the war are hypocrites. But I'm not a country, and I still think the war is wrong.

Alex

OK....
You are obviously against military action in Iraq, and have found evidence to support your views.

I am not for war, but support the US & UK action in Iraq, and have found evidence supporting my views.

I am not trying to change opinions, I just hope the world tries to see our view on the situation that's all. As for the good guy, bad guy thing, the US wouldn't be so apt to take defensive postions if they weren't being criticised so much. I aggree that if you want to criticize the US, then you should be able to. However.....people don't look at the whole picture, and are all to ready to point the finger at the US because it's easy. At least that's what we see over here. Streets of Europe filled with people with posters of Bush and Hitler in the same picture, and buring of the American flag and people stomping on it and thrashing US business. Kind of makes you feel under-appreiciated.
You seem like an intelligent person, try to understand the view from the average American's mind and eyes. There is anti-war rallies here as well, and if you feel that way, you should be able to express your views, but some of the protests going on are plain wrong. Can't say I see any of us burning Iraqi or French flags and stomping on them. Or putting pictures of Chirac next to Hitler or Hussien. I saw someone had an American flag, and put a swastika in it where the stars are supposed to be, kind of ticks me off (anti war rally in Australia). Where's the dignity man? Where I live their is tons of demonstrators, for and aginst the war, but neither the anti-war or pro-war rallies do anything of that sort.

Let's leave it at that then...

Alex

I was hoping someone would come up with this bullshit argument. The argument being : France/Belgium that ungrateful damn country. We helped them in ww2 and there for till the end of times they should follow our lead without questioning.

The US didn't get in to the war until they them selfs were attacked by the Japanese. And even then the didn't go to war with Germany. It took Hitler to declare war on the US for them to get involved on the european continent. The US really had no chois but to got to war with Germany.

You see the exact same thing happen in Iraq. The US didn't care much about Kurds or Iranians being butcherd by the Iraqies. But when they see there interests on the line they are ready to act.

I'm not saying other countries are better. Some are even worse. But don't be so naive and blind to think the US woulden't do stuff like that.

Sorry bentman78, that was a bullshit argument.

Is it so far fetched to think of one's country's government as motivated purely in economic terms? Morality? Morality never had anything to do with any country doing anything.

The blind faith in one's government to do what is morally right is annoying and disturbing. Sonce when has it been any government's job to uphold morals? Never in my lifetime. Besides isn't that the Churches job? There was a great picture of Tony Blair and the Pope on the cover of a political satire magazine this month in the UK:

The Pope says "Peace be upon you" to which Tony Blair replies "You must be joking!"

Come one guys. When we stop seeing governments as moral we can start getting on with the important task of self government.

(Did that sound good? Do you think they'll swallow it? Great! Maybe I should run for President!)

Since Q*bert has to swear, that show's his own intelligence level, so I need not say more. Therefore I won't oblige him with an argument.
It seems to be a soft spot for the British, and most Europeans saying the Germany would have won the war without US help. I am sorry, that's the way it is. Germany was a much more powerful, advanced, driven, and better trained military at the time. Even more powerful than the US. The US had an isolatioinist poilicy, yes, and I wish they would now. However Iraq is a threat, and we have our own interests at stake here. So do the French and Russians (business interests), an so does Hussien(to kill the US).
To me the oil argument is garbage, as I stated, the US get's less than 3% of it's oil from Iraq. So as much as you would like to make up stuff, or talk at of your own behinds, the fact remains oil and expansionism isn't a factor. US safety is.
Basically the the situation is he needs to be removed, so how are we going to do it. Well....we asked him to step down, he didn't. The UN doesn't want to enforce it's own rules. So what's next? Kill him with kindness? Slap his wrist? Or maybe let him build his weapons and be a threat. I don't want to see any Americans (or anyonelse for that matter) die because of this.
I am sorry you disagree with the WW2 statement. Some wanted to bring up the revolutionary war...so obviously history needed to be told. And to note, WW2 wouldn't have taken place to begin with of Hitler was dealt with earlier. Instead he was left to fester and grow. Same thing here. Hussien is a threat, end of story.

To Leme_Lama, I hope our differences of opinions on this situation doesn't prevent us from potentially helping eachother out with a technical problem ni the future. I have no hard feelings.