 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
I would have voted for the option: Saddam is evil but his regime won't last forever so just leave it alone unless he starts the shooting (again).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Sadam is evil, I wish we could solve it peacefully but I doubt it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
You forgot the option of this poll sucks because you don't have the option of letting Ming ban Saddam and Bush to mingapulco for a free lifetime stay in the smallest cells available
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
Saddam is evil, but it is none of our business, unless he attacks us, therefore no war, no sanctions. If we wish to impose rules against him, we should have the same rules for eveybody. For instance, if he's not allowed ICBMs, why should we have them? Maybe Saddam believes in MAD, and wants to have a safety net so he can be sure that the West won't nuke him.
Bush is just trying to force his morals onto others. I don't see why Bush's morals are better than anyone elses, it's just he has the military power to back it up. I don't think the war is necessarily about oil, nor the safety of the US (he can't attack you) I think it is about Bush' and Blair's morals (who are both practising Christians) that Saddam is evil and must be removed. Even Blair, while trying to be cagey as ever, has let slip that he want's Saddam removed. It is another example of Bush and Blair trying to muscle in on the sovereign business of another country. Like Bush's statement that Yasser Arafat should be removed. Or the US forcing developing countries to enforce their economic systems, their patent protection, via the World Bank and IMF. We do not have control of the US domestic policy, indeed many Americans resent that they are being told to listen to the UN at times, but they still insist on interfering in the domestic policy of others. The US can simply ingnore whatever the UN says, but Iraq cannot? I think I recall someone her on 'Poly (can't recall who, sorry) who asked how they can take the UN seriously, when it has China and Russia as permanant members. Yet they are the two countries that have vetoed the least. The US has vetoed more than all the other 4 permanent members put together, and 3 times more than Britian, the second highest. What makes China or Russia less worthy of a place on the council than the US? Simply because they disagree on ideology and policy?
Sorry about the rant, but I felt some of this was relevant. And sorry if it seems like more US bashing. They are legitimate questions.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-02-2003 14:44
Boris
How Texan/Canadian of you 
|