Ok with US reday to go to war with or without UN aproval and 48 hours almost up its to late to ask this but, do you think we should go to war??

No offense but there are like 40 other threads about this. :D But I think the Us should go to war.

War actually started this morning when some airborne troops went in and took out a small troop of Iraqi's.

well since it's innevitable looks like we should all just support our troops and hope for the best to happen. i know that i'll be waiting for ANY and ALL info about this, cuz i wanna know everything about it if i end up joining and it's still going on when i get in (still at least another 1.5 years but still)

I don’t think we should go to war. If the USA continues to invade country after country, we will soon be in WWIII!

hey read this

U.S. has deployed around 235,000 military personnel in the Gulf region and Britain has committed some 45,000. Strike force includes dozens of warships and nearly 600 attack planes. Australia has committed its 2,000-strong force of troops, jet fighters and warships in the Gulf.

Iraq has some 350,000 troops, an air force short of planes and pilots, and a small navy. Saddam's personal bodyguard numbers some 15,000 Special Security Force Organization troops.
Iraq has 350,000 troops and 15,000 special forces.

I must disagree with you there, Echuu. What the US is doing is preventing a WWIII by taking out a tyrant before Saddam becomes the next Hitler. I mean think about it. When Hitler was in power, we he did things while we looked the other way, and before we knew it, the French were soon seeing their country being overruled by Germans. The US is not looking the other way this time, even though the French and Russian and Germans are. They are failing to see the truth, which is Saddam must be removed from power. The US is only doing this to keep global peace, which Saddam cringes at the word Peace. He probably doesn't even know what it means, more less want it. It'd be nice for France to repay the favor of us helping them from STILL speaking German by joing the US, same with Russia, but if we have to go in with the other 35 allied countries, then so be it.

Umm...who exactly is with the Yankees? :confused:

I know France isn't. Same goes for Finland, Sweden, Germany, Russia, China etc. etc.

Who does *not* condemn Bush's actions? Spain and Blair (4 key members of his parliament, that I know of, have resigned because of this). Denmark?

My whole beef is the fact that we have the UN, at least I thought we had the UN, to keep the peace between almost all nations. The UN said that America and its allies cannot attack Iraq. America said too bad we can do anything we want because we are America and no one can tell us what to do. Why do we think that everyone else has to obey these rules when we don't?

IMHO of course.

Did anyone like how when Bush addressed "the people" today that they did a wide shot with his kids in the background and then zoomed in on him?

Also, the fact that Saddam called us the American Zionist Alliance. Never heard that one before.

I just don't want to go to sleep tomorrow and find out that the world has been blown up because America surrounded Saddam and he nuked everyone or something.

BigTeddyPaul

I haven't heard the results of the bombings yet, but I bet 5$ that according to Iraq the US missiles hit nothing but women and children and they got 140 hours of videotape to prove it. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Luc Solar
I haven't heard the results of the bombings yet, but I bet 5$ that according to Iraq the US missiles hit nothing but women and children and they got 140 hours of videotape to prove it. :rolleyes: That's probably right!

Originally posted by Luc Solar
Denmark?

Technically, yes. By the narrowest possible of marigins the Danish parlament (Folketinget) voted to grant millitary support to the Coalition.

But the Danes, like BTW the British and the Spanish, are fairly uniformly against it.

BTW: The Danish Statsminister (Minister of State, ie: Head of the Danish Executive Power) and our Udenrigsminister (Foreign Minister) were attacked bodily for this by an activist from the organisation Globale Rшdder (Global Roots). Nothing serious, of course, just a pot of paint over their heads... There will be a big bash over this, because the activists got into Christiansborg (the Danish parlament (no the name has nothing to do with C'Jais)) through a hole in the security procedures that may have been caused by an MF (MP) from Enhedslisted (Unitylist, the party on the most extreme left in Danish politics (apart from DKP (Danske Kommunist Parti, have a shot at the translation))... She certainly applauded the incident, the idiot.

Hmm...Mеske skulle du overveje, ikke at tage alle de danske navne med?! ;)

I'm just saying to ShadowTemplar, that he doesn't need to include all the Danish names;).

Hmm... Du siger noget... Men pе den anden side sе hшrer vi jo hele tiden de engelske navne for det... LOL. Jeg er for doven til at gе ind og жndre det nu.

Du er ogsе fra Danmark?

Vi er i шvrigt allerede i WWIII. "Either you are with us, or you are with the Terrorists." - George Walker Bush, el Presidete for USA.

Det lyder som Tredje Verdenskrig i mine шren.

Originally posted by Andy867
I must disagree with you there, Echuu. What the US is doing is preventing a WWIII by taking out a tyrant before Saddam becomes the next Hitler.

FYI, WW3 has already started.

Now, Saddam is not capable of becoming a new Hitler. He has no-fly zones in the north and south (where the oil is), he has several sanctions against him, and if he should ever pull a stunt like he did in the 80's, he'd be gangraped into submission. Add to that, that your country has bombed Iraq over the past ten years, and his military is a mere shadow of its former glory - Iraq is simply not capable of invading anything anymore. And no, his little rockets cannot even reach Europe, and definately not USA.

As far as the argument that "he can always use terrorists!" goes - no, there's been no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. You can always use the argument that "But they can just use terrorists to hit us!" to support a "preventive" war. Why not attack Iran as well - they hate you too, and they could also just use terrorists to hit you. Or maybe Russia - they're commies FFS and have several terror connections. Or how about every f'king arab country? See how that argument goes nowhere?

Facts on the table people - Saddam is not threatening you. That guy knows that if he so much as takes one step over the Kuwait border, the UN will have a legit reason to castrate him once and for all.

This all comes down to whether the US has the right to make a pre-emptive strike against a country they've got no proof are threatening another. The UN says (and I agree) "No, you cannot". This pathetic argument cannot support anything, as you can use it to justify attacking France as well - they hate you too, no? They have nuclear weapons!

What's even more funny, is that the US feels this rule should only apply to them. Iraq cannot, for example, make a pre-emptive strike against something they feel threatens their nation (the US, fx). Oh no, only USA is on the moral high ground here (despite their seeming lack of interest for human rights and peacekeeping missions).

Look at what you're doing: Your cassus belli is that Saddam has WMDs, but you have not found evidence of this so far. If he had WMDs, he'd not be able to store them any longer, as they require big ass facilities to keep maintained. You're making up evidence of his connections with terror groups and of his nuclear capabilities. It's f*cking frightening that you're forced to forge evidence, and it's even scarier that the press lets you get away with it - "it's nothing serious". :rolleyes:. And finally, Bush has the nerve to use such claims that Saddam is a threat to your country!

In short, if you've failed to get it: You have no legal basis for this war, apart from a far-fetched hunch that "that guy is up to no good, let's remove him". You're not capable of seeing what this needless war will lead to: More terror. More destabilization in the middle east. More hatred towards the West.

The Gulf war in 1991 was legit (even though USA practically persuaded Iraq into attacking). Your frenzy against Afghanistan was also UN backed (though only because of the goodwill from 9/11). And now here we are - the US pissing on the UN, abusing its military power to justify their actions and generally wasting whatever goodwill you had left. Your press acts as the president's lapdogs and have no critical sense left (they brushed off all the forged evidence as "accidents" and decided not to make a fuss about the US spying on UN members and their torturing of two prisoners to death). And you can throw this into the mix as well: When the US needs to "extract" information from prisoners, they ship them over to Egypt and tell them to get whatever information they can with whatever means necessary. After that's done, they're shipped back to the US and your country has gotten the information. What happens if someone questions your methods? You just point at Egypt and say "They did it! Not us!"

Al Jazeera are gonna have a feast on your little crusade here.

One last thing: If I hear one more baseless claim towards France, I'm gonna go vetoed UN resolutions all over Israel's ass.

-C'

I'm not an american but I agree with thier going to war on Iraq.

Sadam has killed over a million of his own people with gas, and torture.

simply because he didn't like them.

The only reason France and Germany arn't for war is because they are profitable trade partners with Iraq.

And if the CBC is against it, that's almost a garentee you should be for it.

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
The only reason France and Germany arn't for war is because they are profitable trade partners with Iraq.
wrong. germany first does not go to war because they have caused enough havoc in the world most recently hitler. second not enough money to support a full on war.
France. yes they may buy oil reserves but they cannot afford a war they are barely making due as it is. so leave them alone.

i certainy agree on going to war, and as for france, i say ,"your welcome". if not for us youd be speaking german.

and whats this that people want to call french fries freedom fries, that just stupid!

Originally posted by daring dueler
i certainy agree on going to war, and as for france, i say ,"your welcome". if not for us youd be speaking german.


And if people like you get their way the French and the whole world will be speakin American someday.

Over 40 nations support US involvement including turkey, 14 members of the EU, Japan and basically all non muslim countries.... World support is for the world, its just you are the most vocal.

The whole world practically does speak english, british english, you have to and it isnt like that because of war.

BTW iraq fired some scuds they supposedly didnt have....

The US never asked anybody to go to war... although i believe there are only 40 countries that should be involved in reconstruction and the UN has already proven itself useless and powerless.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Hmm... Du siger noget... Men pе den anden side sе hшrer vi jo hele tiden de engelske navne for det... LOL. Jeg er for doven til at gе ind og жndre det nu.

Du er ogsе fra Danmark?

Vi er i шvrigt allerede i WWIII. "Either you are with us, or you are with the Terrorists." - George Walker Bush, el Presidete for USA.
Yup, selvfшlgelig er jeg fra Danmark!!!:D
Hmm...Det er noget vжre sludder, ham GB siger!

Now in English:D:
Originally posted by CagedCrado
14 members of the EU
Yes, Denmark supports, but approx. 60 % of the population DO NOT support the war!