No.

Ditto.

Another nay

Not without more justification than that we don't like him. Or because daddy didn't finish the job last time...

Of course, if we were interested in liberating the Kurds and establishing a genuine democracy in Iraq (and not a puppet one), then sure. But that might annoy Turkey, and lead to an Islamic Theocratic state with control over oil supplies, and we couldn't have that, now could we...

---

by Jayjay
Not without more justification than that we don't like him. Or because daddy didn't finish the job last time...

---

Well, the usual reason given is the weapons of mass destruction Saddam is supposedly developing. Even people who support an invasion mostly seem to admit that the case hasn't been made though.

For me, even if there was a good reason for invading, and a sound plan as to what it should achieve and what should happen afterwards (none of which I've yet come across), until the USA changes its apparent determination not to even bother asking the UN or concern itself with such minor matters as international law, the UK should play no part in it.

Agreed, and most important of all, this should be about what the people of Iraq want. But Bush things he has a god given right to tell people who they're leader should be. First the USA, then Palestine, now Iraq...

I think Britain should lend aid to America in this fight. We don't know all the facts, how could we? There could be things we're not aware of, which tip the scale. Plus, even if Saddam doesn't have these 'nucelear weapons', he's not exactly a 'good man' or fair ruler.

Wars are never pleasant, or good, but sometimes they're a necessity.

---

by KieranFrost
I think Britain should lend aid to America in this fight. We don't know all the facts, how could we?

---

No, we don't. However, our leaders owe it to us to give us enough facts, or even any. Especially when we're expected to trust a man like George W.

---

Plus, even if Saddam doesn't have these 'nucelear weapons', he's not exactly a 'good man' or fair ruler.

---

No, he's not. However, if those were reasonable grounds for invading a country, that would put most of the world in the firing line, including, some might, say America.

---

Wars are never pleasant, or good, but sometimes they're a necessity.

---

It's not a war as such, it's an invasion.

In any case, as I've already said, the necessity of this war is far from being demonstrated, and once it is, it should still require the approval of the United Nations.

Depite the fact that it's once again America sticking it's nose in where it's not wanted, nor needed...

Look in the polls, Duyba ain't doing too good.. "hmm what shall I do, ah! lets go to war, that always works"

It smacks of America looking after it's oil interests more than anything else (As per usual)

---

by In A State of Dan
it should still require the approval of the United Nations.

---

In theory yes, BUT if the UN won't agree to 'ousting' Saddam, then it shouldn't mean that's the end of it. There would be inner politics effecting the decision, so it wouldn't be a fair result. If America (ignoroing Britain for now) wants to invade, I think they should be permitted. If it's 'wrong' to dictate who Iraq should and shouldn't have as leader, it's also, by that logic, wrong to dictate to America what they can and cannot invade... okay that seems rather meglomanictic, but you know what I mean

I personally don't see George W. Bush Jr as a liar, more stupid than dishonest. I'm also proud of the strong relationship between America and Britain, something the rest of Europe lacks. In the end it's in the hands of the politicans, who know the true facts. The public maybe isn't told to avoid mass panic... possibly anyway. Just a thought

---

by KieranFrost
I'm also proud of the strong relationship between America and Britain, something the rest of Europe lacks.

---

Actually, this is a big part of the reason why I'm so anti the UK joining in a purely American invasion. If there's UN approval, that's a different matter, but I really hate the way Dubya says jump and Blair says 'How high?' I don't get the special relationship. Geographically and culturally we have a lot more in common with mainland Europe and I really worry how much we are isolating ourselves from our continent by sucking up to a country thousands of miles away that chucked us out once and if push came to shove really doesn't care about anyone but itself.

---

by KieranFrost
If America (ignoroing Britain for now) wants to invade, I think they should be permitted.

---

So, Iraq invading Kuwait should have been ok? From what you're saying, i would guess you supported US and others actions in the Gulf War in response to this invasion.

---

by KieranFrost
In the end it's in the hands of the politicans, who know the true facts. The public maybe isn't told to avoid mass panic... possibly anyway.

---

It's possible. But if there was such a real danger then why would the UN refuse to sanction action? After all, they sanctioned Kosovo, Afghanistan (I think - someone correct me if I'm wrong there), and various other conflicts not directly related to disputes between neighbours. If there was a real threat from Saddam why would they not approve this proposed action?

---

by KieranFrost
If America (ignoroing Britain for now) wants to invade, I think they should be permitted. If it's 'wrong' to dictate who Iraq should and shouldn't have as leader, it's also, by that logic, wrong to dictate to America what they can and cannot invade... okay that seems rather meglomanictic, but you know what I mean

---

Actually, I don't. Not least because I'm not in a position, nor am I trying, to dictate what America should do about anything. I am saying that I think them invading Iraq without the support of the international community is a very bad idea, and that the UK shouldn't support them in that. If pushed, I'll also say that I'd rather Iraq didn't have Saddam Hussein for a leader either - but this doesn't give other countries the right to invade and murder him.

You're equating leaving Saddam in power with doing nothing when Hitler invaded Poland, and that's most certainly not my logic.

---

I personally don't see George W. Bush Jr as a liar, more stupid than dishonest.

---

Except for, y'know, fixing the result of a presidential election which he lost. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's stupid, that just means he's surrounded by people who aren't.

---

I'm also proud of the strong relationship between America and Britain, something the rest of Europe lacks.

---

Something they're no doubt equally proud of. Seriously, I've always been puzzled by what exactly Britain gains from this relationship.

---

In the end it's in the hands of the politicans, who know the true facts. The public maybe isn't told to avoid mass panic... possibly anyway. Just a thought

---

A few points: If 'the facts' were that bad, surely there'd be a higher degree of urgency than we're seeing? And they'd still release what they thought we could 'cope' with knowing in order to placate the popular opposition to the invasion? And other world nations - or at the very least the UN Security Council and the G8 - would have been let in on this imminent catastrophe?

(Edited by In a State of Dan 05/09/2002 18:03)

---

by White Hart
(quotes)
and if push came to shove really doesn't care about anyone but itself.

---

France also comes to mind here.

---

by White Hart
(quotes)
Geographically and culturally we have a lot more in common with mainland Europe

---

Geographically we have more in common with Europe, but culturally i think we are much closer to American than continental Europe. Having said that, i still think we should be part of a more involved European Union.

I am very fond of America, and I think America should be and is a very important friend and ally to Britain, but as far as Iraq is concerned, I think we should say no to an invasion until there is more evidence to support the opinion that Saddam warrants an invasion.

I also believes that if the USA ignores the UN in this matter, it is (and i know some people believe it already has been for a long time) as doomed as the League of Nations was.

I'm an American, and I don't want the U.S. to invade Iraq. It's not that I think Hussein is such a great leader or have any fondness for him. I just don't think the U.S. has the right to remove foreign leaders its president doesn't like just cause we can. Of course, it's more complicated than that. But no, no, no, no, no. I don't support this, and I don't personally know too many people who do. It's just damned arrogant. And please remember, it represents one American view not all. Unfortunately, the people with that view happen to be in power.

I was hoping that Tony Blair would say no to getting Britain involved in this. But he seems to have fallen in behind Bush. What do most of the people in Britain think? I can't believe they're FOR this.

---

by Maffrew
(quotes)

Geographically we have more in common with Europe, but culturally i think we are much closer to American than continental Europe.

---

You took the words out of my mouth. I think Britain, being an island, has always been isolated from the rest of Europe. We are certainly *culturally* closer to the States.

I don't think the UK should enter into the war.

"Tony Blair would very likely lose his job if he took the UK into war with Iraq, former Labour MP Tony Benn has warned."

But I have a feeling Blair is going to. I see him as Bush's lapdog! However if the fire fighters strike goes ahead it may not be possible-with 10,000 members of the armed forces occupied by fire-fighting!

"Allied support is regarded in Washington as valuable but not in the final analysis necessary."

We can always tell when something is going on by the increase in airplanes zooming overhead-we live near a large RAF base.

Number 10 has rejected growing demands for Parliament to be recalled.