greg1917

No it wasnt Israelis who flew the 9/11 planes but it was terrorists who were responding in part to Israel's occupation of Palestine. If a free Palestinian state were declared and Israel stopped bulldozing arab houses and farmland and illegally occupying territory then this would help tremendously in reducing western hatred from arab people across the world. I dont see how bombing refugee camps with helicopter gunships is any kind of meaningful response to suicide bombings.

By agression i mean ignoring UN resolutions for 30 years to withdraw from occupied Palestine and help create a free Palestinian state. Surely this would help Israelis lead more peaceful lives as well?

the gas attacks im scared of come from fundementalists who despise Israel and wish to vent this fury on the countries that support Israel.

Its hard to see how this war is justified when America finds nothing wrong with the state of Israel's agression and a far worse record of ignoring Un resolutions than Iraq. Isarel scraes me because its treatment of arabs leads to hatred which majorly contributed to the rise of terrorism responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the current security threat to the US and the UK. Am i scared of a gas attack by the iraqi republican guard? no. Israel is the far more serious problem in the middle east.

I still have yet to hear any conclusive argument about how iraq is any kind of threat to the US security. as Robin Cook said they have battlefield munitions but do they have the capability for intercontinental, city strikes? can they strike america in any meaningful way?

Well the news just said American armoured divisions had gone to forward positions close to the iraqi border and there were far more than planes than usual taking off to patrol thr no fly zone. looks like the invasion is tonight.

The families of the palestines murdered by israel and the families of the dead iraqi children starved by sanctions see america as exactly that. the only thing america and europe have brought to the middle east is strife so far through the beyond disgraceful double standards to israel.

He gassed a million people? What figures are you basing that wild assumption on? The gas attack at Halbja in 1988 caused an estimated 5000 casualties and reports indictae he used gas against iranian soldiers in the iran-iraq war but a million people? We all appreciate hes a genocidal arrogant dangerous leader but lets stick to accurate figures.

British planes fly in these zones well, and it costs several million pounds a day to maintain. and we cant stump up the same cost per YEAR for a decent fire sevice...

and take over production in Iraq

Who better to control the oil then the number one oil consumers?

Rebuilding then leaving isnt the same as seizing control of oil supplies. A free market would be America dropping its protectionist economics policies, as well as the EU, and engaging in fair world trade. however much the US rebuilds iraq, existing foreign policy will continue to be the reason for hatred. israeli imperialism also plays a part to.

The US isnt the bringer of pain in the middle east? your right there actually, europe has to share some blame to. Britain has a terrible imperial history in iraq which it certainly isnt proud of.

But is there not only a kurdish population near the turkish border? If so, what is the purpose of the southern no-fly zone? Incidentally it should be mentioned that allied patrols usually announce their presence in advance before patrolling the zones so iraq shooting at them is somewhat agrressive in this circumstance

Would you say the no fly zones have achieved their purpose, whether officially sanctioned by the UN or not?

So you ARE suggesting a US colony? Well coming from britain i think im in a slightly better position to judge the benefits and disadvantages of imperialism than you. if you think America will play the role of the benevolent motherland, showering the iraqi people in love and flowers then thats bullcrap because if theres one thing the 20th century showed its that empires can decay just as fast as theyre built. and where do you stop? why dont u invade libya because you dont like the leader and russia because your scared of its decaying nuclear arsenal?

The best thing to happen to a country (certain) is to be attacked and rebuilt by the U.S

Were you living in a sack during the past 12 years? look at whats happened since the first gulf war. have u ever considered america perhaps changing its foreign policy to one that doesnt discriminate against 3rd world countries, that doesnt arm israel and and doesnt enrage the middle east? No, it would be easier to drive over them and rule them with an iron fist. i see your logic.

list or security council resolutions

688 is right there

Are you actually being serious? simply take control of iraqi oil supplies? the gulf oil field does not belong to the US and they have absolutely no right to claim it as their own, thats the most aggressive expansionist crap ive heard since Hitler invaded the USSR for 'living space'. the gulf oil field is the property of the sovereign nations that occupy it, and that isnt the US.

pumping more energy out and reaping the benefits, that is- more money in their pockets

u criticise them for selling the most sought after resource in the world? in the same post as u claim a US colony would be beneficial to world peace? In iraq and saudi arabia there is a large peasant population but there is also a popualtion of educated, middle class decent citizens. are you completely blind to this? they arent all terrorists living in caves or in huts in the desert, theyre ordinary people.

As for your claim that by not having oil revenue, terrorism will cease, well im still laughing actually. so you'd reduce middle eatern nations to poverty stricken wastelands and let the US march in and steal the oil? America wouldnt do this because it has morals, it has common interests with the middle east and it isnt as completely blind to cultural differences as you are.

well I havent heard of any conclusive arguments of how a solution of a perfectly pure optical compound can occur in nature without the aid of an already existing biological agent.

If your interested, heres a list of possible solutions to this problem and why none of them are satisfactory, hence the remaining mystery about chirality in life. Its essential to our very existence yet how did life come about with the problems it poses? the structure of a dna double helix depends on it for a start.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp

Im not bashing the US here, im just opposed to a completely futile war. America has common interests with Briatian and I hope our history of cooperation in armed conflicts continues but this is different. And if by US basing u mean being scared of American 'friendly' fire then i think im bloody justified as a certain canadian didvision in afghanistan will tell you.

Its no wonder the iraqis hate the west. the british government puts saddam and his thugs in power. they sell him weapons some of which he uses on his own people. in response to saddam invading kuwait they kill and maim thousands then LEAVE saddam in power. they impose sanctions which effectively give saddam the power to distribute food and also lead to thousands of iraqi children dying. despite UN weapons inspectors claiming iraq is cooperating more and more, the US claims its under threat and decides to kill and maim thousands AGAIN in order to free the iraqi people, or the real case which is to get their hands on iraqi oil supplies. they probably invade without the UN resolution that makes it legal and with the majority of the world firmly against it. Britain tags along in toe watching its young lads be killed by american bombs then gets landed with the peacekeeping role afterwards when the US finds another country to bomb in attempt to show they're winning the war on terror.

when adam says yada yada yada in response to the pole shift explanation by faf, why does he contine to belive all professional geologists are wrong? the mechanism of the actual pole shift is irrelevant here, its simply the intervals at which they happenand it sure as hell wasnt 3600 years.

i presume hes in high school because i rememebr a post where he claimed atoms consisted of a central nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons and protons, Rutherford will be turning in his grave! its people like this that make you sad we live in a democracy....

it pleases the US to attack? I suppose it would please Iraqi mothers if their children werent killed by American smart bombs, or maybe it would please muslims all over the world if America didnt attack iraq just because if a nation isnt white then it aint right. If Americas national security was threatened by iraq (which it isnt) then this war might be partly justified. Iraq wasnt responsible for 9/11, wasnt responsible for the anthrax attacks and has no proven links with al quaeda. Im convinced it does have weapons OMD but so does israel, in my view a bigger threat to world peace. or then there's north korea which recently threatened nuclear strikes with the weapons it DOES have.

I hope britain pulls out of this so we dont get labelled with this war, because i certainly dont support a single invading soldier except those fighting for the union jack, and id like that to continue.

WW2 was justified. the falklands war was justified. the american bombing of afghanistan was, i felt, justifed. this isnt. Africa is littered with dictators with a worse human rights record than saddam, but they arent sitting on the gulf oil field are they. if george bush is to believed, a war will pull us out of recession. I despise tony blair for siding with a war mongering illiterate and hope he gets booted out of the labout party for ignoring the majority of the populace of the country hes supposed to represent.

If he has no rights why did he forcibly eject inspectors from iraq in 1998? he still commands the iraqi republican guard, still controls his country, could order an attack on a foreign nation whenever he wanted (not that i think he will but he has the capability) and he also still sits at the head of one of the most oil rich countries in the world. Id say coalition forces left iraq and forgot about it. Forgot about the anti Saddam movement and let it be wiped out by his secret police, forgot about the weapons that were nvere confiscated, forgot about the sanctions they imposed on him and most of all forgot about HIM.

Im assuming he didnt destroy every single WOMD for several reasons. He denied having Al Samood missles live on prime TV then less than 2 days later, UN inspectors found them and started dismantling them. If they find a medium for delivering chemicals or biological agents then the assumption he has those chemicals or bio agents is a pretty safe and reasonable assumption to make. And in any case, if he actually had destroyed his stockpiles this would go against everything thats happened over the past 12 years. the inspectors being thrown out in 1998, the continued resistance to inspectors generally, the UN passing resolution 1441 in novermber etc etc.

I agree with fafalone here, there is absolutely no question Saddam has WOMD. He's already used them! the Kurds found out the hard way when he gassed them. They're dismantling Al Samood (again spelling?) missle ast the moment. WE SOLD HIM anthrax and if we're finding shells with empty chemical warheads he must have the chemicals to put in them...

Lets just tie up something. Iraq is in possession of anthrax. This is not my opinion but verified fact due to Britain admitting that it sold Saddam Hussein anthrax several years ago. We do not need to go charging into the most volatile region on the planet to confirm this, all we need to do is look at the receipts britain has. Saddam has scud missles - bought from the former soviet union. we know this because he used them in the last gulf war I believe. We know he has several strains of types of nerve gas because he's used them on the Kurds at various times in the past 2 decades.

Now what we do not know. there is no proven direct link between iraq and al quaeda, the presentation Colin Powel gave to the UN was highly criticised on this part, at least by the british media and European politicians. Besides, Osama Bin Laden detests Saddam because iraq is a secular state, is quasi-socialist, non-islamic and thereby an infidel by bin laden's logic. Bin Laden even labelled Saddam a communist, id hardly say they were in cahoots. We do not know exactly how much material Saddam has but if he's agreed to have Al Samood (spelling?) missles destroyed then this must be good news. Iraqi scientists are being interviewed in private, inspectors dont seem to be being denied entry to his presidential palaces and Hans Blix keeps on announcing that Iraq is cooperating more and more. A good job the UN have appointed someone called Hans to search for arms...

I agree. If America didnt show such blatant double standards towards israel the hatred towards the US from neighbouring arab countries wouldnt be nearly so intense. If globalisation and subsidies to US traders didnt completely overshadow the aid Amercia gives African countries (and the EU is just as guilty of this) then people couldnt accuse the US of unfair two faced trading. Or if perhaps the US didnt pour troops into countries who obviously had problems with them being there for an attack they dont support, then there wouldnt have been a huge increase in the numbers of British nationals being killed by car bombs in Saudi Arabia recently (despite Saudi's feeble attamepts to claim they were fueling booze merchants operating inside Saudi Arabia). The foriegn policies of the US - and the EU's foreign economic policy that mirrors it - need to be changed and now. the war on terrorism shouldnt just be fought against warlords in afghanistan, if foreign policies dont change nothing will have changed.

Theoretical physics I can mostly handle. All the stuff about cosmology, black holes etc. I dont have a deep understanding nor do i fully appreciate absolutely everything thats said but I can mostly follow whats going on.

Then theres string theory. Never have I met a more obscure, seemingly random theory. Not only do I fail to understand it in its very basic form but when i read some more intricate versions my head begins to hurt. im guessing there are several people who are in the same position as me (at least I hope so) so if anyone can manage to explain this to me id very much appreciate it.

I dont think anyone will remember the mass objections to this war when people look back on it. The million people plus marches, the slaughterings Blair has taken on the media, the outcry of opunion in this country against war, people will look back and only see Britian deployed troops in the Gulf because America did and it looked like a good bandwagon to jump on.