Poll: War - yes/no?

[Lostie]

And to the anti-war brigade that keeps moaning on about the USA and UK's own store of nuclear weapons etc, I put this to you.
Kuwait had no WOMD to act as a deterrant, and not much defensive capability at all. Look what happened to them just before the last gulf war. They were an easy target for an insane dictator. What's to stop the same happening to the UK or Israel if we disbanded our armed forces and destroyed our WOMD? Nothing. Saddam has done it once and he will do it again, unless he is removed NOW.

 

[dirtydog]

Originally posted by Lostie
And to the anti-war brigade that keeps moaning on about the USA and UK's own store of nuclear weapons etc, I put this to you.
Kuwait had no WOMD to act as a deterrant, and not much defensive capability at all. Look what happened to them just before the last gulf war. They were an easy target for an insane dictator. What's to stop the same happening to the UK or Israel if we disbanded our armed forces and destroyed our WOMD? Nothing. Saddam has done it once and he will do it again, unless he is removed NOW.

Who has suggested disbanding our armed forces or decommissioning our WMD? We need those for self-defence. Attacking Iraq doesn't fall into that category.

 

[Toast]

Originally posted by Lostie
Channel4? haha BBC1 at least would have been worth something.

All i was doing was pointing out how much the vote can swing depending on the voters.

Actually, they seem to have quite a healthy discussion on their forums as well... http://community.channel4.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=162603557&f=503603557&m=6586084302

 

[Custor]

Originally posted by Lostie
And to the anti-war brigade that keeps moaning on about the USA and UK's own store of nuclear weapons etc, I put this to you.
Kuwait had no WOMD to act as a deterrant, and not much defensive capability at all. Look what happened to them just before the last gulf war. They were an easy target for an insane dictator. What's to stop the same happening to the UK or Israel if we disbanded our armed forces and destroyed our WOMD? Nothing. Saddam has done it once and he will do it again, unless he is removed NOW.

So everyone needs WMD for an adequate defence? Better sell some more to Iraq.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

Originally posted by Custor
So everyone needs WMD for an adequate defence? Better sell some more to Iraq.

When did she even suggest that?

WoMD are for deterent purposes. Oh except of Saddam who used them on a minority

 

[Lostie]

Originally posted by Custor
So everyone needs WMD for an adequate defence? Better sell some more to Iraq.

No, but civilised democracies do, as protection from rogue states like Iraq and North Korea.

 

[Custor]

Originally posted by Stiff_Cookie
When did she even suggest that?

WoMD are for deterent purposes. Oh except of Saddam who used them on a minority

"Kuwait had no WOMD to act as a deterrant, and not much defensive capability at all. Look what happened to them just before the last gulf war. They were an easy target for an insane dictator"

There.

Civilised Democracies have already got WMD. They had them even before rogue states were invented which probably helps explain how civilised democracies have killed more people in wars in the last century than any other type of government.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

Originally posted by Custor
"Kuwait had no WOMD to act as a deterrant, and not much defensive capability at all. Look what happened to them just before the last gulf war. They were an easy target for an insane dictator"

There.

Civilised Democracies have already got WMD. They had them even before rogue states were invented which probably helps explain how civilised democracies have killed more people in wars in the last century than any other type of government.

She said that they didnt have WoMD and not much of a defence. She didnt say that they didnt have much of a defence BECAUSE of the lack of WoMD

 

[dirtydog]

Originally posted by Lostie
No, but civilised democracies do, as protection from rogue states like Iraq and North Korea.

It's fascinating the way the general public have adopted the silly and subjective phrase 'rogue state' from Bush.. what the hell makes a country a rogue state anyway - because Bush says so? Because you don't tow the Washington line? I'd like to know.

 

[Red and White]

Originally posted by dirtydog
It's fascinating the way the general public have adopted the silly and subjective phrase 'rogue state' from Bush.. what the hell makes a country a rogue state anyway - because Bush says so? Because you don't tow the Washington line? I'd like to know.

They dont follow international laws
They dont care about dimplomacy
They are a threat to the world

 

[Custor]

Erm nor do we. To all three.

 

[dirtydog]

Originally posted by Clerkin
They dont follow international laws
They dont care about dimplomacy
They are a threat to the world

The US is indeed the biggest and most dangerous rogue state

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

^^^^^

Originally posted by dirtydog
It's fascinating the way the general public have adopted the silly and subjective phrase 'rogue state' from Bush.. what the hell makes a country a rogue state anyway - because Bush says so? Because you don't tow the Washington line? I'd like to know.

 

[Pez]

Originally posted by silverpaw
Iraq is a country which:

• Tourtures it's own people.
• Executes people without trial, beheading in the street is popular.
• Gassed 60 000 of its own citizens as they went about everyday business.
• Invades neighbouring countries, Kuwait for example.
• Persistantly tries to create chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, against UN resolutions set out after the last war.
• Has broke resolution 1441 by not declaring the whereabouts of chemical weapons we hnow they have, nor proving they've been destroyed.
• Have persistently ****** about, threatened and spied on weapons inspectors.

What possible reason is there NOT to remove Saddam?!

Absolutly spot on

A yes vote from me

 

[Bug One]

Originally posted by Toast
I'm just wondering what the reason for the sudden shift in peoples opinion on the war? I always thought the majority of the UK was against it... Is it just the fact that people are thinking "its gonna happen, so i might as well agree?"

I personnaly voted No, and am supprised by the result. My brother-in-law is currently in Kuwait and I am obviously going to support our troups when the conflict starts. I know that the only thing my sister wants is her husband to come home in one piece.

Heres the results of the channel 4 poll... "Now that Britain has abandoned efforts to achieve a second resolution on Iraq, do you support military action?"

Channel 4 News - 34% Yes 66% No

The polls havent changed since the beginning of this. The yes vote has always been around 70%. You thought most of this country was against it because those who oppose the war are making the most noise. Those who support the war are content to keep quiet and allow our leaders to do what we all know is the right thing.

As far as I can see, some of the opinions about why not to goto war are very naive and ignorant. I dont want to go into arguing every little point, but just that there comes a time when we have to stand up for what is right, and not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the world will sort itself out.

Its all too easy to beleive that if we turn out backs on the problem, it will go away. Unfortunately its not that simple.

 

[Over Clocker]

I vote a resounding Yes.

 

[tom_nieto]

You don't have a 'Couldn't give a turd' option.

It ain't going to affect me... I don't think.

 

[Over Clocker]

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

 

[DAVEM]

I agree those who are willing to back a war are just keeping quiet. Blair is right, its about time we sorted out iraq. They can no longer treaten the west. ATTACK IRAQ


a complete yes from me


D A V I D M E R R I T T

 

[MindYerBeak]

Result of the OcUK Poll: