Should we bomb Iraq?

andy

Posted: 02.08.2002, 14:48

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

If they are building weapons to attack us, should we attack them?

darkly

Posted: 05.08.2002, 08:30

registered:

Posts: 547

Status: offline
last visit: 23.01.06

I might do something in the future to upset you, you may loose your temper with me and we *may* have a fight...

Does that mean I should hit you now and get the upper hand while your are

a) no expecting it

b) my friend

c) haven't noticed the knuckle dusters and the 20 inch biceps...

D4rk|y

darkly

Posted: 06.08.2002, 09:16

registered:

Posts: 547

Status: offline
last visit: 23.01.06

Seriously though,

I don't know if attacking can be justified. Putting a nation to war (ours and theirs) is not good for anyone, especially the innocents who are always caught up in the crossfire.

I do strongly feel that monitoring should be used but there is also an argument that we do not have the right to 'impose' ourselves on another nations way of doing things.

Bottom line: I don't want to be at war, but if it was between me and them... I know who I would want to survive.

D4rk|y

Posted: 12.08.2002, 12:37

registered:

Posts: 294

Status: offline
last visit: 23.04.06

I wouldn't want to be at war either.

But don't know what I think about your question about whether we should bomb them.

andy

Posted: 19.08.2002, 09:29

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

I think I've decided we should only go in with the UN's backing.

In fact I think I've decided that should always be our position.

Midge

Posted: 11.12.2002, 23:06

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

Any more thoughts on this? Thought I should bring this up again as it's topical and I felt sorry for it being at the bottom of the pile. Can't say I've got any new answers, except that politically correct total relativists can't say we ought to (not) bomb Iraq, or oppose the Taliban or Apartheid or anything. In an ideal world, the weapons inspectors would see that things were (not) amiss, and smart bombing would sort it out. But unfortunately things aren't that simple.

I always feel that if I'm asked my opinion by people who are sure, they'll turn nasty if I say I'm not sure, particularly people who are anti-bombing (as also with other issues). You get made to feel that if you aren't sure, it's cos you don't really care - rather than that you haven't had the time to research international relations thoroughly and digest it all, and that therefore you're being cautious and humble rather than pretending to understand everything.

davidb

Posted: 12.12.2002, 16:06

registered:

Posts: 280

Status: offline
last visit: 04.05.05

Currently, my un-thought-through opinion is that we should definitely not bomb Iraq. Unless I'm provided with evidence that there's real danger, I can't justify it to myself or my Muslim friends.

andy

Posted: 18.12.2002, 04:10

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

We need to work to strengthen the UN, by:

- Obeying its authority

- Encouraging/pushing it to act

- Being prepared to enforce its authority

- Making it fairer for poorer countries

In the Iraq situation that means that if weapons o' MD are found we would need to encourage the UN to authorise action and then do the action.

People in the know seem to think that sanctions are a BAD THING, but I wouldn't want to do nothing either.

But invading a foreign country that just happens to have the second biggest oil reserves inthe world? Bad, bad, bad PR, even if it were for good reasons.

darkly

Posted: 12.02.2003, 20:12

registered:

Posts: 547

Status: offline
last visit: 23.01.06

Well, regardless of whether we think it is wrong or right I think we may be seeing the consequences soon.

Oh, did anyone see the pics of the tanks outside Heatrow? "Welcome to terminal 4"

D4rk|y

andy

Posted: 17.02.2003, 03:07

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

I've genuinely been praying about this - mainly that Blair will have the courage to resist the US if he feels that is right.

andy

Posted: 02.09.2003, 10:04

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

So: should we have invaded Iraq?

davidb

Posted: 02.09.2003, 11:52

registered:

Posts: 280

Status: offline
last visit: 04.05.05

I suspect we don't know half of what the government knows, which makes it hard to say. But I've been pretty anti throughout. The fact that the WMD situation is so different to what we were told to believe beforehand surprises me and makes me suspicious... Why was it that our intelligence was so wrong? How much of it was known to be unreliable, but sold as reliable?

One of the big questions remaining for me is: why did we really invade when we did? It's often painted for us as being because 'enough was enough', ie 12 years of Iraq flouting the UN made our patience wear out. But this was mixed with claims that Saddam was in league with Osama - was that the real reason?

Ultimately, my concern is in a different direction to all of these questions. I feel that invasion should have been the last ever resort, as I'm sure that it will create endless resentment amongst Muslims for decades. This is bad for Western security, and worse for spreading Christianity in the Middle East.

andy

Posted: 03.09.2003, 13:57

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

I agree with pretty much everything you say, davidb (as always?). As for the real reason? I suspect damaged pride.

If so, there is hardly a worse reason conceivable - we'd best start praying for forgiveness from God and men.