[color=red]
This is already the second part of the topic Let’s go to war against Iraq!!!
Part one is locked you can find it here:
slagt.net/ld4all/viewtopic.php?t=2408
[/color]
oh yeah, how about stopping french kissing next? 
That is really funny.
imm0rtal: you shouldn’t let your anger overtake logic. Anger is not what you should be making a life or death decision on.
I must agree. Striking out in anger is foolishness.
All wars are won and lost first in the mind, then on the battlefield.
Germany has started a world war
England has tried to fight down the indian liberty movement
The USA fights down the people in latin america
Iraq has fought down his own people
I think you could go on like this for years…
So, here is my point of view:
I don´t trust any gouvernment that is involved in this conflict!
(Actually, I don´t know if there is any trustable country in the world)
Still, I believe that Saddam IS a dictator.However, I don´t feel threatend very much.I don´t think he´ll shoot is 150km missiles over here or something.Terrorists might attack, but they don´t need no iraq to do hat.
So, to me there is only one thing for us to do:
Help the people who suffer under Saddam
But I am sure, THAT isn´t the goal of the USA, England or anyone else.I don´t know if “blood for oil” fits here.Perhaps, perhaps not, but they do NOT want a war to help the people.I know I got no evidence, but I simply don´t believe it after all our countries have done.
If we don´t attack Iraq
-the people will keep suffering
if we attack Iraq
-many humans will die
-the enviroment will be damaged
-the power of the rich countries will grow
-the whole concept of peace will be questioned (“Noone attacks first”)
-the people will keep suffering
Putting it that way, I am against the war.I got to admit that I have no clue what to do, but better the people keep suffering without a war than with one.
If the USA attacks without agreement of the UNO (which they´ll do), they are, like the Iraq, a country that doesn´t accept international rights and has weapons of mass destruction.
If it wasn´t so sad I had to laugh, but perhaps this is the only thing left to do anyway
Traumgänger
edit: I am glad the german gouvernment is against the war (not cause they are so kind, but since they want to get voted again…)
However, I agree it was stupid to tell the world (especially Saddam)
Well yesterday I saw a TV-movie starring some peace-activists living in the USA. They went to Iraq to show that not every American is thinking like its government. They showed some examples that I simply must tell you:
you know, every person in a democratic nation has the right to be defended in trials. A woman - call her W - (I don’t remember her real name) defended the terrorist, who first attacked the WTC in the 90s. Lately she was taken to the CIA by some police men. They accused Mrs. W of supporting a terroristic organization. She got free, after all, but what is the result? no lawyer will defend anyone who is accused to be a terrorist, even if he was not.
a nun, who is a peace activist, just wanted to travel by plane. she was probhibited to enter the plane because her name was part of a list on which there were names of “dangerous people”. As such she was not allowed to enter this plane.
Even some people who lost relatives in the attack of the WTC think that answering hatred with hatred isn’t the right way. so they are engaged in activities where they can show their motto: “Not in my name!”.
Mr. Bush has made some laws which destroy civil-law-achievements of the last years. now the pentagon has the right to control any flow of data including phone calls, data transferred via internet and so on. the boss of this pentagon section was accused of some crime a few years ago. where do you think this will lead to?
Even a huge “friend” of the USA named Isreal says that the USA falsely spread the information, that Israel is in danger because of Iraq!
At last I want to tell you my personal oppinion concerning this topic:
as traumgänger mentioned the german government is against a war against Iraq. I highly appreciate this attitude.
Some hours ago the security councel of the UN met in New York. Do you think, that most of its members would vote against a war if there was real evidence that Iraq would not cooperate and would refuse to destroy it weapons of mass destruction? I don’t think so. Many nations regret that the US plans to attack Iraq without any support and legalization by the UN security counsel. What does Mr. Bush allow to say things like:
“The UN security counsel has failed to do his tasks!” ? Who was intended to be more important - the USA or the UN?
Or: What kind of ultimatum is that:
“We give Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq. If he does not, we will attack. If he does, we will invade Iraq, too. Maybe we will attack even before these 48 hours have passed.”
Now who truely believes that the US government just wants to “free” Iraq? Why did they even support Iraq some years ago?
Well, as you can see, I could argue for hours, but I won’t.
Please think about these arguments for a minute and you will see, that there is at least one corn of truth in it.
Peace!
These 2 last post are exactly what i think about it.Thx for putting my view into words.
Im allways suprised how come that nations of 2thousands years long civilization can opt for war of any kind.We have been touched by so many wars before and the result was allways suffering and war crimes.We should know by now:(
sad,sad ,very sad
If the US wants to teach Iraq a lesson, teach em how to read not kill.
I posted some more stuff one the topic at another website. If you want to, check it out. I also offered a bunch of interesting links there. 
ultarius.com/XMB/viewthread.php?tid=567
Fabi
Dont get one thing-why everyones repeating that Saddam wasnt cooperating?Even your own Blix along with other inspectors say exactly opposite.
Second thought isnt mine"War doesnt say whos wrong or right,it says whos left".
Blix was saying some progress was being made; he never said anything to the effect of “Saddam is fully cooperating with the inspections”. The progress he was referring to was the eradication of petty bombs to make it appear as though Iraq was doing something.
do you truely believe that destroying bombs is not doing something? Isn’t it that what the USA (officially) wanted the Iraq to do? to reduce its weapons?
That is progress, but it is very small. The bombs they did destroy were illegal, but the more insignificant ones. At the rate we were going, it would take many years to completely disarm Iraq and during these years he could move his nuclear program to one of the locations where he wasn’t allowing inspectors to see and continue with his work. And to be official, the U.S. didn’t want a gradual reduction of some weapons, they wanted an immediate disarmament of all illegal ones.
I thought that the UN inspectors could go anywhere. Could they?
PS I am in year 12 and i have to write a persuasive piece on the war on Iraq either for or against and this is helping, so thanks for posting here wethere your agruments are for or against the war.
Paul: You mentioned a nuclear program in your post. There’s is no nuclear threat coming from Iraq. It has been very clearly stated several times that the nuclear program that used to exist has not been revived in any way, on any level or in any extent. There is absolutely no proof of any such program and all experts have said that it’s nearly impossible for Iraq to have nuclear weapons.
What comes to the inspections, Blix said there was significant progress going on - not perfect but still promising. The previous inspections had already left Iraq weak and the new ones were doing well. You said they were only destroying petty weapons and left all the significant untouched? Now tell me, what proof do you have that Iraq has those more significant weapons? The whole point is that there is no proof of any significant threat coming from Iraq. It’s obvious that Hussein hasn’t fully co-operated and has surely broken some rules. But the big question is: is this big enough a reason to attack Iraq and cause lots of innocent deaths and perhaps a humanitarian catastrophe? One can say all rules must be obeyed but still some sense can be used. It’s not like we sentence pocket thieves to death, is it? And the Iraq situation is about many, many ordinary civilian people, not just what Hussein has done. Also, it’s more than obvious the world is full countries breaking rules, including the US.
You also say that the US didn’t want gradual disarmament but an immediate one. First, it’s not - or it shouldn’t be - about what the US wants but what the world community, UN, wants (obviously the US forgot this at some point). Sure, immediate disarmament sounds peachy. That’s the way it should be. But if we can only get gradual disarmament, does it mean we have to immediately jump into a war? So what if we had to wait for a longer time? Sure it would have been expensive and perhaps frustrating but I say we should have paid that price instead the price of innocent people being killed. Like I said, Iraq already was very weak after the first inspection so even gradual progress in the second inspection would have been enough - it would have eventually lead to Iraq being so weak that it surely wouldn’t be a threat of any kind.
Somehow I find it a little daft to talk about the possible threat that Iraq is when it seems this is not even the main reason for this war - as has been said by experts. Oh well.
I just heard on the news that Iraq claims that 207 civilians have already been injured. I don’t know how trustworthy the Iraqi government is, but if there is even the slightest possibility of this being true then you can expect more civilians to end up in hospitals and in cemeteries. And there are also 7 (i think) British and US troops missing in some sort of a helicopter crash.
What has come from this war so far? NOTHING BUT DEATH.
20 british & american soldiers are DEAD
250 Iraqi Zivilists wounded or DEAD
…and more to come…
BTW, there are also several reporters missing…the media just confirmed that one of them died by a bomb that was placed inside a car…
But…it’s WAR…what did you expect?
I expected deaths but hoped they could be avoided, there have been many accidents that have killed people, they didn’t need to happen. It is a bad start to a war, but then again war is a bad start for anything.
Well said!
BTW, a patriot rocket shot down a british aircraft…
The Iraqis claim, that they have Prisoners of war…
allied forces @ umm kasr under heavy fire…wasn’t it the town that was captured yesterday? Makes me think…
Bush is killing his own soldiers for nothing. There’s no peace we can get with war. Does he know that violence leads to nothing but violence?
Cya,
Side 
I couldn’t say it any better than you.
For a couple of hours ago I saw something on the TV news that upset me. They reported about these prisoners of war captured by the Iraqis. Donald Rumsfeld (I think it was) was on TV telling that it is against the Geneve convention filming them blah blah. A commentator in the studio told that if the prisoners were treated against the Geneve convention, it would upset the Americans. Honestly, how can you Americans be upset about your own prisoners being filmed in Iraq, when you still have the prisoners from the war in Afghanistan in the Guantamo (or whatever) being treated worse than animals? I know that they are terrorists and “bad guys”, but still, don’t they have rights according to the international conventions? There is a fact that many of them have tried to commit suicide.