---

by Sandia
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.

---

The vast majority with any sense aren't, the middle east is a disaster waiting for a time to happen, Dubya and co prodding is more likely to set everything off than anything else World War 3 anyone?

No I dont think Britain should invade Iraq.

Many people think Tony Blair shouldn't support this, or go to war over this, BUT if he choses to oppose Bush it will be over political reasons, not what he thinks is right. I think Saddam should be removed from power, by Iraq or USA I don't care which. If France or the UN are too political afraid of the consequences, that's possibly the worst reason NOT to invade. To not invade cos it will cost you leadership is not, in my view, a very good excuse.

Also, even though it is unpopular, so was war with Germany and Hitler. Raise your hand if that was a bad move? Again it's about hin-sight. In twenty or forty years, other may regard Bush or Blair as a Churchill of the 21st century, risking all to stop a 'dictator'. Now Saddam, for his faults is not Hitler and Blair is DEFINATLY not a Churchill, but it's unfair to say it's due to pig ignorance, ego and stupidity.

---

by Stoo
The vast majority with any sense aren't

---

Speak for yourself. Maybe you have bugger all sense to be against it? Just a thought.

---

by White Hart
(quotes)

Geographically and culturally we have a lot more in common with mainland Europe

---

Like others I would contend culturally more like Europe, but that's not why I bothered to post.

No-one can disagree that we're geographically closer to Europe, but why is it a good reason to support them? Convenience alone is not a good basis for alliance. A nice bonus, perhaps.

---

by KieranFrost
Many people think Tony Blair shouldn't support this, or go to war over this, BUT if he choses to oppose Bush it will be over political reasons, not what he thinks is right.

---

No, Tony Blair should be opposed to it because the majority of the people that he represents do not wish to get involved in something that is not in the best interests of this country or indeed many others.

---

by KieranFrost
If France or the UN are too political afraid of the consequences, that's possibly the worst reason NOT to invade. To not invade cos it will cost you leadership is not, in my view, a very good excuse.

---

The consequences, totally de-stablising the area as all of the other arab nations have already informed Mr Bush that they are opposed to further US involvement in effectively what is none of their business?
You think that's a good consequence?

---

by KieranFrost
Also, even though it is unpopular, so was war with Germany and Hitler. Raise your hand if that was a bad move? Again it's about hin-sight. In twenty or forty years, other may regard Bush or Blair as a Churchill of the 21st century, risking all to stop a 'dictator'. Now Saddam, for his faults is not Hitler and Blair is DEFINATLY not a Churchill, but it's unfair to say it's due to pig ignorance, ego and stupidity.

---

Yes, and one would hope to have learned by that, look what happened - World War II.

You really think that kicking off World War III is such a bright idea?

"Risking All" ??? Just who gave Dubya the right to act on behalf of the world?

---

by KieranFrost
Speak for yourself. Maybe you have bugger all sense to be against it? Just a thought.

---

Erm, and who the hell do you think you are to be talking about sense? You seem to have been completely brain-washed by the media.

The only reason that Dubya is persuing this course of action is because it wins him the backing of the military chiefs and diverts attention away from the fact that he has all the sense of an single-celled organism, and is going to put things back years by bringing things back to the Regan era.

The middle east is very fragile, the vast majority of the nations despise the USA, what the hell do you think the reaction is going to be if America stomps in there heavy handed as per usual?

All this talk of invasion worries me, a lot, there are other ways of going about ridding Saddam, and for America to stomp in there and put in place what will effectively be a puppet government, what do you think that will do for the stability of the area?

Calm it down guys I remember something in another thread about Not making things personal

---

by Stoo
(quotes)
No, Tony Blair should be opposed to it because the majority of the people that he represents do not wish to get involved in something that is not in the best interests of this country or indeed many others.

---

Whilst it is probably true there has been no referendum about it so it isnt really fact that most people are against it. The opinion polls ive see are from the media (and majority of time complete tosh).

---

by JtB
Calm it down guys I remember something in another thread about Not making things personal

---

Ditto , lets keep this Political and not Personal

Anyone see last night's Newsnight? Seems they're grooming Iraqui's who are in opposition to Saddam for leadership after the overthrow of Saddam. There have been meetings with these people in the US and now they're currently holed up in a hotel here. So it seems Bush has already started making plans for a puppet government who he wants that will say yes sir no sir to him after a war

---

by JtB
The opinion polls ive see are from the media

---

do the Government do opinion polls too? They always mention them in West Wing (tv show I know, but based on truth). If so, what was the results of the poll?

Sandia, I would hope you're average Brit would be able to realise their is a difference between the American people, and the US government. After all, it's not like he ever recieved a majority vote...

And as others have said, if we were to invade every country with a dodgy regime, where would it end? Anyone gunning for an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, China, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Indonesia...?

And as I said before, if we were going to invade for the good of the Iraqi people (the only good reason to invade) then I could support it, as long as we involved the UN. However, this clearly has nothing to do with Iraqi interests but US Republican interests, and I'm not interested in those.

And for the record, Afghanistan was invaded without UN approval. It was the only problem I had with that conflict.

---

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...

---

You can't see the difference between not dictating who is in charge of a foreign nation, and not starting a war? I mean, really? Your logic is a little skeewiff there, mate.

---

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. Just a thought

---

And I thought we lived in a democracy...

---

by Jayjay
And for the record, Afghanistan was invaded without UN approval

---

Well then, I think that was successful and I apporved of that. So if Bush wants to do the same thing again, hopefully it will have the same positive results.

Kieran, The Taliban admitted to having Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in there country, they refused to hand them over or be involved in an investigation in there involvement in the tragedies at New York and Washington last year. It was also a government already embroiled in a civil war with the Northern Alliance. Yet that conflict almost sent Pakistan (a nuclear power) into civil war, and did the westÂ’s popularity in the middle-east any good. It also further ridiculed the UN as being a non-entity to the US. While I approved of the removal of that regime, nothing about how we went about it can be described as good. Farcical maybe. Especially Tony Blair's pathetic release of 'evidence' of Al Qaeda's involvement, which amounted to hot air.

Iraq is a lot more powerful than the Taliban. There is NO link with Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden or the events of last September. While the north of Iraq is under UN protection, there is no civil war. Since the events in Afghanistan Israel has been on an unprecedented attack on Palestine, and tensions are higher than they ever have been. Something most people didn't think possible. There is NO support in the middle-east for an invasion of Iraq. There's very little support in Europe. We are unlikely to get support from Russia or China (both of whom had problems with the Taliban). This is a powder keg waiting to blow.

What should have been a straight forward morally just removal of the Taliban was made a mess of by the arrogance of Bush and Blair last time. They just about got away with it, although there have been aftershocks in Israel/Palestine and Pakistan/India, and relations with the region and the UN were damaged. Iraq could be the proverbial straw that's gonna break all our backs.

All it needs is for Blair and Bush to get some sense in their heads. Make it clear the invasion is at the invitation of the Iraqi people (although this will probably need a recognition of Kurdistan, but that's no bad thing in my less than humble one); go through the proper diplomatic channels. Involve the UN and middle-east allies (we still have a couple). And make no attempt to force a puppet government on the country afterwards.

But that's about as likely as me winning the lottery.

*Should* the US and UK governments obtain the UN's approval before taking action against a country which has ignored 66 UN resolutions? A country in a position to threaten the middleast region with nuclear weapons?

It's a moot point, I guess, as our governments have never shown any willingness to take action against Israel. Ah, but Israel is a democracy, so that's alright, then

just a small thought - but in the great schemem of things the UK isn't that powerful - is Bush gonna suddenely go 'whoops Tony, sorry mate I ainn't gonna invade now' if Blair says no to the invasion????

Its much more likely that if we disagree with Bush then any positive aspects of our relations with the US are gonna disappear - coz they are a big headed bunch gets!

Anyone who refers to Blair as Bushes Lapdog has been paying afr too much attention to George Michael

Oh and I agree to the comments about Bushes dishonesty in the elections - and IMO if Bush hadn't got to power the September 11th wouldn't have happened.

BTW - slightly tipsy now - so i'm sorry if i've made no sence

Maybe, but that doesn't mean we should risk the lifes of members of our armed forces in what could become a 21st century Vietnam. Yes, use diplomacy, but we should pull short of joining in a war that has not been sanctioned by the UN, and has more than dubious aims.

On top of which, if Blair does follow the route he's taking it is likely to split the Labour party and cause possibly irrevocable damage to it.

On so many levels the price is too high to do as Bush wants. If the US are isolated it might be enough to cause US public opinion to be against an invasion.

And I agree, we should be tackling Israel before we do Iraq.

---

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

---

Well just looking at it from the Dutch point of view. In the last month we opened a new UN tribunal for warcrimes. What does the US do they have made a law that if any of their soldiers is put before the UN court they are allowed to invade NL and take those people out and also have a 150.000 men strong army in The Netherlands for the next 5 years after that (Uhmm thats 1 American Soldier to each 110 persons living in NL....). Not really material to build strong relationships I would say... And this isn't something that stands on its own there are more of these little "incidents" over the last few decades.

If I remember correctly the only reason Saddam is still in power is due to the fact that we had those neat air-attacks... If they had started 2 day later the Israeli secret services would have shot him but that became a bit harder to do when he was in his bunkers.

---

Maffrew: but culturally i think we are much closer to American than continental Europe.

---

Well the fact that you guys more or less speak the same language might attribute to that a tiny little bit...

---

Maffrew: I am very fond of America, and I think America should be and is a very important friend and ally to Britain

---

Its always nice to have the worlds strongest / biggest and most modern army on your side I guess. And with America being close to Israel you also have the 2nd strongest army on your side. But at what price...

Aspecially after Israel saying that they won't stand for attacks from Iraq this time around and strike back (and I'm sure they have enough chemical and maybe even atomic weapons to actually trick back... those atomic weapons that Russia lost over the years must have gone somewhere...).

Personally I think that if there is proof that Iraq is building nukes or other chemical weapons of mass destruction that an attack on Iraq could be validated but this proof should be based on something more substancial than what they are currently using.

I think that the war against terrorisme that America is running currently gives them way too much "powers" compared to the "responsibilities" they apply towards their targets. I have always learned that with great power comes even greater responsibility and the relative ease the US is currently using their powers doesn't really show that they take the responsibility that comes with these kinda powers very seriously.

So I would say no to an attack on Iraq until they can show more proof that is actually valid. If they have more than enough proof to get the UN behind them and some Arib countries too.... than who am I to say no to an attack on Iraq. But don't start sending people in there towards their death with only the tiny little bit of proof they have now. Currently it seems move like a "believe" that Iraq is buildng those weapons so they are only attack this country on bases of certain believes.... what makes them different from the terrorists that also where guides by their believes....?

---

by Jayjay
if Blair does follow the route he's taking it is likely to split the Labour party and cause possibly irrevocable damage to it

---

Well, that's another bonus for supporting America

---

by Jayjay
but that doesn't mean we should risk the lifes of members of our armed forces

---

Um... that's what they're there for, in a way. They're soldiers, they are trained to go to war, to fight. If we say we'll only use armed forces in situations which won't kill them, quiet simply, we'll never use them.

---

by Sydney
Its much more likely that if we disagree with Bush then any positive aspects of our relations with the US are gonna disappear

---

Totally agree

It will be interesting to see how public opinion for an invasion may fluctuate over the next week or so as the media becomes dominated with the 9/11 anniversary...

The thing that angers me most about the whole Iraqi situation is that Bush Sr. had not one but two golden opportunities to topple Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War and its aftermath.

The first was that the coalition forces had shattered the Iraqi lines, routed their forces and had a clear road to Bagdad. The decision was made not to do so because it might jeopardise support amongst Arab members of the coalition. Yet, that level of support would almost certainly be higher than it is now.

The second was when the Kurds in the North and the Marsh Arabs and others in the South revolted after the war's conclusion. Saddam Hussein's demise looked imminent but the US wanted him toppled by a military coup, not a popular revolt, to maintain "stability" so it let him fly his helicopter gunships, despite the no-fly rules nominally in effect, and mobilise his forces against them. End result - the collapse of both revolts and reprisals and massacres with the Kurds saved from total annihilation only by re-imposition of the no-fly zone in the North.

My somewhat cynical nature makes me wonder if Iraq's come back on the radar screen because September 11 is a convenient excuse to settle unfinished business since the desired internal military coup has spectacularly failed to materialise and the Iraqi opposition groups have proved ineffectual. Then again, how could they be anything else, given the US' highly variable support?

Even more cynically, I wonder if it's because the Bush Administration has very clearly failed to locate and eliminate Al-Qaeda and needs some bodies to show for its efforts - a country like Iraq would find it much harder to hide from and avoid US military assault than a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda.

I find it odd me writing all this as, all my life, I've considered myself very solidly right of centre, pro-Western and more than a tad militaristic. Maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age.

Incidentally, anyone else here seen The Siege? When I first saw it, I was very impressed. Now, I'm even more so - a Hollywood film about terrorism which accepted that the terrorists' motivation might be rooted in deeply-held beliefs rather than hunger for power or money, that US foreign policy might have been directly responsible for spawning and sometimes equipping these groups and that there was a balance to be struck between security and liberty - that draconian government reactions might very well be accomplishing the terrorists' aims to destroy Western society's liberal way of life.

---

by KieranFrost
Um... that's what they're there for, in a way. They're soldiers, they are trained to go to war, to fight. If we say we'll only use armed forces in situations which won't kill them, quiet simply, we'll never use them.

---

Hardly my point. I never suggested the armed forces should not enter a conflict unless there is no chance of casualties. Kosovo, Bosnia and the Falklands all strike me as just use of the military. The Gulf war, Vietnam and Granada are not. A second invasion of Iraq, with the current aims, reasons and approach would be added to the latter, when it could (and should) be part of the former.