[Lawrie]

Hello and welcome to a special "post" from DRLOZBAKER.......

right as that meeting has just been shown on tv..and the prospect of us destroying that little mid eastern country...whats your opinions on this...are we wrong to do this or....are we in the right as he has broken an international law (hussain)

my personal opinion has slightly changed..i was in favour..now im looking at both sides and relising..both points.....are in my view justified

so what do you think

More proper views from Mr Lee will return shortly

[Chief Erf]

No the war
No to Saddam

[timb]

international law is a myth, it doesn't exist. we need to get this evil bastard. i don't care if he has weapons or not, we as humans have an obligation to stop evil regimes like this. we might not be able to wage war on china, north korea and other evil countries like israel but any that we can beat we have a duty to. we can deal with the others in whatever means we have available. one thing that does worry me is letting the turks into the north of iraq. the turks don't exactly have a good record of human rights against the kurds.

[Lawrie]

thing is the whole world has messed around with him for so long it has become a joke...however the likes of France and Germany are giving him more chances to threaten our lives and the lives of his people by still being in power

the US opinion that "they" have to do it and there doing it for the world when in fact "W" is doing it for Daddy-o is slightly evil in my eyes.

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

my problem is there are evil regimes in africa and elsewhere an why dont we go to war with them? is it because they dont have weapons of mass destruction? is it because they dont have oil? is it because they arent near israel?

i still dont know if we should go to war im not convinced either way. i'd just like someone to give a clear reason without refering to a breach on resolution blah blah blah...

[Gigglyboots]

Ah yes...Magabi (sp? me just typing it how it sounds) It doesn't make sense to me, because it is diverse and changing strategy every day. I don't understand where it went from the Osama bin Laden hunt to ooh Saddam straight away, because it's old earth and nothing new has happened with Saddam since the Gulf War.

Such a mess really.

[timb]

i think we should definately take some action against / zimbabwe too, the SAS could probably handle that one though, it's not exactly a highly sophistacated place.

he hasn't done anything you say? murdered hundreds of thousands of people over the years and he still gives money to the families of suicide bombers!

[Bridgie]

.

[Lew]

i find it funny as well. just trynot to start a fight with the people dressed as buch and blair. they are respected world superpowers and they have lots of financial backing and will kick your arse. even if france and germany arent on their side...

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

yeah cos like the french an germans matter. germanys track record is very poor and as for france its sole purpose is to carry on between times when either us or germany (beating france hardly counts its so easy) kick its arse...

[MK Chris]

I don't understand where it went from the Osama bin Laden hunt to ooh Saddam straight away

'Cos they couldn't find bin Laden, so went for the next best thing. I don't agree with it, I have to agree with Gaspode, no one has come up with a definitive reason as to why we should go to war.

[timb]

coz he's murdering people. why isn't that a good enough reason for you?

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

that is a good enough reason for me but why isnt it being said? all the leaders seem to be hiding behind other reasons because the truth is if they said that people who ask "why now then an not at any other time in the last 10 years?" an that they cannot answer.

[MK Chris]

But he isn't doing anything different to what he was doing a year ago I don't think (to be fair, I am the wrong person to be arguing this, 'cos I am not very well-informed, I get bored of it in the papers) so why should they suddenly move on to Saddam? An action which will kill innocent Iraqi's anyway.

[timb]

i don't see why timescale matters. if you murder someone everyday for 10 years and then the police come and arrest you the 10 years thing won't get you off

[MK Chris]

But the coppers will have been carrying out inquiries for that 10 years, or something will come to light that they didn't know before to convict the bloke (don't get me started on the debate on the pigs.) And the coppers do not normally (however bad they are at their job) kill people in the process of catching a murderer.

Bush has randomly said "Lets go after Saddam." Whether thats because he couldn't find Osama and friends or because he didn't want to look like he was gung-ho as soon as he got into office, I don't know.

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

yep im with topher. the police going ohh we'll leave this crime for now but if we need a big case to get the public on side we will sort it then.

[timb]

well a corrupt police man may have been turning a blind eye to the crime for years and then another one finds out or something, but still the same applied. what has changed in those 10 years is the capability of our armed forces, if we undertook this all that time ago the civilian casualties would of been a lot higher, but today we can do it with precision weapons, and so maybe there is a level where the costs would be acceptable and we've just crossed that line? and btw people are killed by the police, accidents happen. as long as you don't try to kill innocent people and don't put more people in danger than you stand to save then i don't think it's morally wrong.

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

i accept all you say timb but why then dont they come right out an say it?

[timb]

i think one of his many speaches he did try and say it but no1 beleived him so he changed it again, and again etc.

[MK Chris]

So you could kill someone in an incident and stand up in court and say "I wasn't trying to kill them" and you would get of scot free? Yes accidents happen, but there are possibly more of, as you say, "corrupt police" than there are decent hard working blokes. They abuse their power, there are more bent coppers in the met than in Uri Geller's wallet (yes, I know he bends spoons, but for the sake of the (admittedly crap) gag...)

I can see myself logging on after work tomorrow and having to read 5 pages of this thread.

[timb]

if you kill someone in an accident like running them over in the street then yes you probably will get away with it. if you were found to be neglegent by say speeding or by not looking where you were going then yes you would be punished accordingly. like if you launch a missle at someones house without knowing who is inside then you are responsible. if you launch a missile at a weapons factory and the missile misses and kills someone else then that is an accident.

[dizzy fluff]

I dont see why the US and england, just cant keep on doing what they have been doing over the past 12 years...... random bombing and keeping on top of military action there, with out doing a full scale war......

Bush only wants to invade so he can have sum control over the oil, all this talk of liberating the civilians is wank....... he always has ulteriour motives........ war sucks and so do i..........

[magenta]

if you kill someone in an accident like running them over in the street then yes you probably will get away with it. if you were found to be neglegent by say speeding or by not looking where you were going then yes you would be punished accordingly. like if you launch a missle at someones house without knowing who is inside then you are responsible. if you launch a missile at a weapons factory and the missile misses and kills someone else then that is an accident.

No you wouldn't, if you kill someone without intent, that's just manslaughter rather than murder.

[timb]

only if your at fault. accidents kill people all the time but noone is charged because they werent at fault.