Where do you stand?

[davefoc]

Was just curious how a bunch of skeptics and any others that happen to be lurking about felt about the war . I have a fair idea after reading war posts for last week or so, but I was interested in quantitative answer.

I would also be interested in the country you are from if you wouldn't mind posting that info.

Note: I misspelled favour in honour of our British Allies.

Note the question about reject all war unless US is attacked should read reject all war unless home country is attacked. I would have changed it but guess we can't edit a poll once its up.

[schplurg]

My 'quick and from the hip' answer:
I'm in the "pretty sure we should" category. I haven't posted any opinions on this board yet on Iraq, but I feel that Saddam has to go. Does the U.N. have the right to boot him out? I think so. But does the U.S. have that right without the U.N.? That's where I'm somewhat unsure.

The U.S. and U.N. (both together and separately on the part of the U.S.) have assumed a role in policing the world. Saddam has agreed to Resolutions and so forth set by the U.N. By doing so, he has given the U.N. the right to police him under the conditions set by these resolutions. Of course, he sorta had a gun pointed at his head when he signed (and deservedly so?). Ok, bla bla...

If the U.N. is to police the world, then they should live up to their end of the bargain and kick his stupid butt out of there. I am much more in favor of a strike against Iraq with the U.N. backing us up, but they won't do it. We don't need more resolutions, we have enough.

One thing I don't like is that we currently have enough problems here at home, especially economically. Timing is an issue for me. But what the hell, 'there's no time like the present'. :confused:

Oops...did you want my 2 cents, or just my vote? ;)

With the amount of information that I have on this subject (and the fact I've downed a few pints tonight), I can't say I'm 100% sure on anything. I'm limited to what I've learned from the media, discussion such as this, my own experiences, and common sense. I don't know what intel may exist that is not known to most of us. Maybe the so-called "smoking gun"? I do think we have enough information without it.

I think he needs to be taken out, so why should I care who does it? I'm kidding, but...really...? I hope we get the job done right, and I'm rootin' for the home team.

F**k You Saddam!!! I know that's completely immature, but it feels good :cool: I still think farts are funny too, so...

I'm from the United States.

[fishbob]

I am pretty sure that routing out Saddam should be done - it should have been done in 1991. I am very sure that the lack of diplomatic abilities our political leaders have displayed will hurt us in the long run. We have created hard feelings with some allies and we have made opponents of some fence sitters. I am afraid that we have given incentive to a whole new crop of suicide bombers. I hope that having Saddam out of the picture will help make up for the number of new enemies we have gained.

[davefoc]

I especially agreed with both fishbob's point that Hussein should have been ousted the first time around.

To beat up on Iraq and then leave Hussein in power was a staggeringly immoral act by the US and (to the degree they were consulted), by its allies. Not only was it immoral, it was harmful to American and western interests on several levels. Almost certainly it guaranteed to creation of a highly motivated group of anti-west terrorists.

I think I understand the reasoning behind not taking Hussein out (Turkey and perhaps neighboring arab states concerned about a democratic Iraq in their midst) but for me, the war should never have been fought unless there was an agreement to take Hussein out. If agreement couldn't be found , the war shouldn't have been fought or the allies that couldn't agree to that should have been excluded from the alliance.

I know that this was a little off topic, but thanks for listening to my rant. When I was a young boy I can remember my Father telling me how the mistakes made after world war I led to world war II. It was amazing to me that in my lifetime world leaders would repeat the same kinds of mistakes that had been made after world war I.

schplurg,
Was definitely interested in your two cents, thanks.

[crocodile deathroll]

Yes I voted some wars are justified like the last gulf war and the war on Hitler but not this one because the UN inspection teams were clearly yielding results.
The last war America was justifiably out to get Saddam Hussein and liberate Kuwait, but this one it is not so much America out to get him but the personal ambitions of the president and the Bush Abomination out get Iraq's oil wealth, and they are real crying crocodile tears for the attack on the Kurds by nerve gas 15 years ago because if they were truly sincere about saving the Kurds from nerve gas attacks they would of done something about it then