And they're off...

[David Smith]

I seriously hope that is not a serious question David. Seriously! We do not use our weapons on our own people for no apparent reason. Saddam does and wipes out races of people. He is a despot. A threat to his countrymen, women and children. He is a threat to world stability and natural order. He is a cancer that needs removing promptly.

America have to be stopped, every year since 1946 they've bombed a country. Go on, check the net and backtrack, it's happened.

America rose cancer by 40% after boming iraq in the gulf war, and what happened next? they banned the appropreate mdeictaion from entering incase they converted it.

Wow, Sadam kills his own people, that's why America should stop him? America have the worst nuclear weapons history yet being one of few contries to ever use them.

Ok, so pretending the iraq people have actually asked America to help them (which i doubt they have seeing as America have been boming them for years) then do you not think by dropping bombs they're going against that cause they're more likely to kill the civilians.

To say Geroge Bush isn't as bad as Sadm is a joke. George FAKED Alcudia links. I'm not doubting Sadam has weapons, but diarmment has to start at homes. Maybe if George Bush wasn't such a ****ing coward he would see that.

Why are America able to have weapons while Sadam isn't, bearing in mind Amierca have used them more. The USA have done just as much damage to civilians as Sadam has.

Iraq are the fourth largest army in the world? Well between third and forth there's a real drop, put it this way, i'm the 5th largest army in the world.

Seriously though, America have changed their reasons so much. One day it's alcudia links, the next it's about his treatment to his own people. Never once accepting that they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction, or that sadam has never used them.

Right now i'm going to say that i DON'T support sadam hussaine, but America are just as bad, especially as they're the ones who sold the bloody weapons in the first place. Bullies of the world they are, arm countries and blow them up. Israel have more weapons than iraq and more of a hostory of using them, why not target them?

[Keith Jordan]

Perhaps America will be disarmed by europe in the next step of the war against international terrorism. America supports faction groups and all sorts of evil by giving them intelligence info about their enemies, weapons and money. Britain is to blame as well. At the end of the day, it all boils down to power and money. How sad. What a filthy species we are on the whole!

[SydsMadcapGirl]

Right now i'm going to say that i DON'T support sadam hussaine, but America are just as bad, especially as they're the ones who sold the bloody weapons in the first place. Bullies of the world they are, arm countries and blow them up. Israel have more weapons than iraq and more of a hostory of using them, why not target them?

Heh...one of the many reasons I don't want to raise my son in this damn country. I've always wanted to move to Ireland somewhere or England...dunno realistically if it's any better there though...no clue whatsoever. Someone please show me somewhere that ISN'T corrupt, and I'll pack my bags and be on my way.

And not only am I am American, but I live in friggin Texas. We've got it BAD here. Can't wait to get out of this state.

And David...out of curiosity...do you have PROOF that Bush faked Al Queda links? I haven't heard that one before.

[David Smith]

Actually over here the politicians started going on bout it before OUR press uncovered that Sadam and Osama are different religeons and hated eachother.

Call it left wing propaganda but i call it no coincidence that during the course of a 5 hour deabate last week nobody mentioned these links once. Could this bne cause they don't exist.

All those in britain, watch channel 4 news, because unlike BBC they're not funded in part by the government.

All those in America, i feel your meid are screwing you over and holding you back from information that SHOULD help you to make your decisions. The media over ther is totally corrupt with groups like CNN corrupting how people look at the middle east. It's all subuminal messages people, count the amount of times George, or even Tony use the woords "us" to suggest a union of the people.

And keith, do you also back us (see the woring there) for wanting to attack bearing in mind that a vast majority of Britain don't want it?

[Keith Jordan]

And keith, do you also back us (see the woring there) for wanting to attack bearing in mind that a vast majority of Britain don't want it?

The vast majority of people in Britain are too stupid to make an informed decision as to whether or not they support disarming Iraq of its dangerous weapons. I say leave it up to those who know more about it. I hardly know anything about it to be honest. I know one thing for sure: if somebody is a threat to me, I want to talk to that person to remove the threat and, if the threat is not removed through talking, then I believe it is my right as an individual - who has rights - to use physical and, perhaps, even fatal force to remove that threat. Individualism is key and our government should be there to protect us from dirty bombs, destruction of our lives, families, friends, countrymen and property.

[David Smith]

As if Iraq could even reach us? The only danger to us is ourselves getting in a war that shouldn't by all logic involve us. (sorry to disclude all but the brits here, won't happen again)

This is the situation where a very large drunk has been beating the crap out of someone for years and is now getting annoyed cause this guy who he usually beats the crap out of might have a knife as protection. Britain of course play the part of the average guy called in by the strong guy to help him win a fight he should by all logic win.

We have nothing to do with it, and i don't see why a so called liberal britain would support a republican america in this war.

As for a majority of britain being to stupid? What sort of a snobby comment's that? I take offence to that because i know people (family incuded) who went to those anti war marches in glasgow and london. If you can trust the least socialist labour party yet led by tony blair then fine, but actually look at evidence from both sides first rather than BBC news that aims to promote this war.

If this is a situation of us and them, then i feel America are totally pulling our strings like a puppet master. Why is it fair to stop a country having weapons when we do to?

And what do you know, we've used them before.

[madcap69]

I say NUKE Baghdad off the map and the rest of Iraq will surrender real quick!!!!!

[bong]

Why the hell don't they just revolt?? O.k. saddam will call the troops on him, but if they said that they are willing to die so that people future generations don't have to live under his rule then why not??
Sure he's got the backing of the military but so did Julius Ceasar.

[David Smith]

Yeah, if there's a serious problem then leave it to them rather than involve ourselves eh?

Actually, i beleive most of what we hear of iraq is exaggerated right wing propaganda. I had a guest speaker round at my school from iraq and they mentioned very little of the people's problems coming from there, or less than we would think anyway.

However, she did mention america raising cancer by 40% as a result of their weapons and refusing to let in the medication.

[Keith Jordan]

As if Iraq could even reach us? The only danger to us is ourselves getting in a war that shouldn't by all logic involve us. (sorry to disclude all but the brits here, won't happen again)

When you are tucked up safe and warm in your bed at night David you honestly believe that Iraq and other terrorist states cannot reach you? Dont be silly. They may not be able to fire a rocket over and deliver a large payload but they can set off small bombs manufactured in britain full of radioactive matieral. They can fly planes into buildings. They can stab peopel in the face. Don't delude yourself my friend.

This is the situation where a very large drunk has been beating the crap out of someone for years and is now getting annoyed cause this guy who he usually beats the crap out of might have a knife as protection. Britain of course play the part of the average guy called in by the strong guy to help him win a fight he should by all logic win.

America doesn't need us to fight Iraq. That is politics. Britain is as hard as nails considering that our entire country is smaller than New York State!! But America doesnt need us. They could fight alone. It is because of our historical ties due to empire, imperialism and the fact that, since Britain lost its role in the world as the worlds policeman, we need a new role. Our new role is administering American foreign policy to the continental europeans!!

We have nothing to do with it, and i don't see why a so called liberal britain would support a republican america in this war.

As a powerful and responsible nation of individuals who do not want dirty bombs kiling our men, women and children I think very much that we have something to do with it.

As for a majority of britain being to stupid? What sort of a snobby comment's that? I take offence to that because i know people (family incuded) who went to those anti war marches in glasgow and london. If you can trust the least socialist labour party yet led by tony blair then fine, but actually look at evidence from both sides first rather than BBC news that aims to promote this war.

Knowledge of international politics, military knowledge and the level of intelligence the average Brit has access to are factors that, to me, suggest the average Brit is not qualified or informed enough to make a judgement as to the threat our country faces. That is my point. Not everybody is the same though. The world is a whole load of shades of grey!

If this is a situation of us and them, then i feel America are totally pulling our strings like a puppet master. Why is it fair to stop a country having weapons when we do to?

There is certainly politics at play but I prefer to see it as cultural and historical ties having an influence on our domestic policy. Perhaps ignorance is bliss though. 100 years ago, great empire that ruled most of the world and certainly all the ports and trade in the world. Today, a new "worlds policeman" called America that overshadows us!!

It is fair to stop them having weapons because they are a threat to our personal safety and economy. They are basically a threat to our way of life.

And what do you know, we've used them before.

I "remember" us using them in WW1 and 2 to stop the spread of the axis of evil. I remember us using them in the Falklands when our land was invaded. And the Gulf after Saddam gassed quite a number of his own people. Perhaps Britain should have kept Iraq as three states in our Empire and taught them some disciplin!

[madcap69]

ONCE ITS GROUND UNDER AMERICAS HEEL , MAYBE THE REST OF THE AREA WILL LEARN THERE LESSON

[David Smith]

Ok, Iraq may be a threat to us yeah? But they can still have terrorists over here with or without sadam Hussaine. Also, we're the ones willing right now to do stuff to them and THEY HAVEN'T ATTACKED US YET!

Why should we push facist views that go against the ruling of the UN? Ameirca were with Iraq when they gassed the kurds, and all this stuff they do to their own people, well i feel it's grossly exaggreated.

Are our women and children e.t.c going to be killed? Perhaps we wouldn't have dirty bombs e.t.c knocked at us if we don't choose to involve ourselves. This is all paranoia that's stirred up by the media while Tony blair aims to present a good impression to America.

The reason the average brit can't decided what sort of threat we're being presented with is because half the media build it up to be to much of a threat while the other half say there's no threat.

Now also ask yourself this, if you were sadam hussaine and you're cornered by America, then would you really want to create more trouble by sending people to attack Britain? And do you think we're going to kill more soldiers than civilians?

And madcap, do you realise you misspelt their?

[NewEarthMud]

That's the whole point, David.

The Clinton administration had an opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden at one point.. Clinton and his officials were asked if the military could act... take out Bin Laden. At that time he chose not to do so..

Look what happened on Sept. 11. It maybe could have been prevented if things were taken care of in the previous administration.

So I think it's fine to do this... I know that I DO NOT want Saddam to attack US FIRST and kill thousands of people before we take action against him. Then it will be too late.

Let Bush, Powell, and the administration handle it. They are the elected officials. I trust them, and I trust Tony Blair. I DO NOT trust Saddam Hussein.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Why the hell don't they just revolt?? O.k. saddam will call the troops on him, but if they said that they are willing to die so that people future generations don't have to live under his rule then why not??
Sure he's got the backing of the military but so did Julius Ceasar.

If the majority of Iraq's citizens and armed forces personnel truly do want Saddam out of power a revolution will take place in the future if we leave Iraq alone. Saddam could tell the armed forces to take care of the people when they revolt, but if the majority of the armed forces do not listen to Saddam's orders he will, of course, fall from power.

You would think the USA government would acknowledge what eventually happens when most people in a country desperately desire leadership change (i.e., REVOLUTION!)

[Real Pink in the Inside]

The Clinton administration had an opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden at one point.. Clinton and his officials were asked if the military could act... take out Bin Laden. At that time he chose not to do so..

Not true.

When the American embassies in the East African cities of Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were attacked in 1998 in coordinated truck bombings, the Clinton Administration approved retaliatory cruise missile strikes against bin Laden's alleged mountain stronghold and several of his known training camps. The attacks succeeded in destroying several key targets, but Bin Laden escaped.

Look what happened on Sept. 11. It maybe could have been prevented if things were taken care of in the previous administration.

Since when did the Bush Administration get Osama Bin Laden? I want Bin Laden dead, but to act like Clinton was incompetent for not taking out Osama Bin Laden is rather silly. Everybody in this great country wants OBL dead, and has since 9/11. However, Bush has been unable to obtain him, so why does everyone think Clinton should have been able to take out OBL when VIRTUALLY EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHO OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS?

It has been over a year and a half since 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden is still free to make threatening audiotapes. Bush hasn't been able to get OBL with all this support and effort put into getting him, and people actually think Clinton should have got OBL with an IOTA of the support and resources Bush currently has at his disposal?

Nobody foresaw 9/11, least of all President Bush or else he would have made getting Osama Bin Laden a top priority BEFORE September 11th, 2001. You can't fault Clinton OR Bush for NOT having "Take Out Osama Bin Laden" at the top of their agenda PRIOR TO 9/11.

So I think it's fine to do this... I know that I DO NOT want Saddam to attack US FIRST and kill thousands of people before we take action against him. Then it will be too late.

Iraq does not have the capability to attack us and they never will thanks to UN resolutions.

The thing that bothers me about Iraq is that it is not very clear exactly why we need to take care of Iraq with WAR. There has to be a better solution.

I don't want to see any American soldiers die for essentially nothing.

I DO NOT trust Saddam Hussein.

Nobody does.