Hey d24e im not offended in the slightest, in fact quite the opposite, im pleased that u want to contest my views 
I would like to reply to some of ur own comments tho if i may.
Originally posted by d24e
Not all people (including myself) feel like they have to go march on the streets for it though.
This is exactly my point tho. If there was any such pro-war protest do u have any idea what kind of outcry there would be? Anyway, as far as the opinion polls go here in the UK the majority support a war.
there are many other ways to get to Sadam I'm sure.
Yes sure, but it seems that all other avenues have been exhausted. Diplomacy certainly wouldnt rid Iraq of Saddam. Personally I wouldve preferred some sort of CIA assasination - always a mystery to me why no covert operation was undertaken. In any case though, war had to be considered an option - as Bush and Blair said - it was a last resort. Would we just go on giving him more and more time?
if you go after Saddam for being a horrible dictator you might aswell go fight all the other dictators around the world
Yes well as far as i can tell that is they policy. Remember, Bush's statement about "The Axis of Evil"? North Korea and Iran added to Iraq. Im sure one way or another they will be tackled also. I hope to God war will be avoided but u can never discount it - because there simply might be no alternative
certainly not now because he is a global threat to the western world. This he is certainly not! Terrorist organisations like Al Quada (and many more) are much more interested in hurting us
Well it is all relative as to how much a global threat the present Iraqi regime is. In addition, by global threat, I dont just mean Iraq's threat to the US or UK. If Saddam does have WMD's there is no limit to how much instability there would be in the middle east, particularly in event of their use against Israel or Kuwait or Iran for example.
I dont know if u have heard but the coalition forces are also fighting against an Al Qaeda related terrorist group in Northern Iraq (name escapes me at the mo). So this suggestion the Iraq has no links to Al Qaeda is unfounded.
dr. Hans Blix wich was unfortunatly not heard because Bush started that 48 hours ultimatum)
If most of the countries feel they should give inspectors more time, what makes the us and britain have the right to make it happen like they want it?
U cant really say Dr Blix wasnt heard. Iraq had 12 years to do what was neccessary. Time and time again they either prevented weapons inspectors from doing their job or kicked them out of Iraq. At one point there were no inspections for 2 years I think because Iraq did not co-operate.
Most of the countries didnt necessarily want to give the weapons inspectors more time, it's that they didnt want to goto war without UN backing. In fact only a few countries wanted inspectors to have more time. Furthermore its quite suspicious that those countries that did oppose have vested interests in Iraq...
If I'm not mistaken, international aid workers would do a much finer job than the military if only they got as much funding as the war does.
You cant really compare these, simply because they do different jobs. And in this kind of situation they need to work side by side
Ultragames, calm down mate - there is no need to get worked up. Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether u think it is right or wrong. I think everyone hopes for the safety of all troops and civilians involved in the war
And guys...lets keep it civilised 
btw - do u have any idea how long it has taken me to get all the bold and quote bits correct lolol I might start a war over it :argue:
Last edited by alexgc; 24-03-2003 at 09:49 PM.