The news media yesterday were all over the fact that Australia was sending some troops into the Gulf area in preparation for war. This is despite the general feeling of the population that we should not attack Iraq without UN approval.
How does the general population in the USA & the UK feel about attacking Iraq? Is it similar to here where something like 3/4 of the population disagree with the soldiers being sent at this point?
I made this post elsewhere, but it’s relevent here too. My office is in Boulder, CO. For those that don’t know it is a very liberal city. Anyhow, the other day at the city council meeting, they were discussing (and passed I think) an anti-war resolution of some sort (I guess the cities militia isn’t going to Iraq:rolleyes: 
)
Interesting - a city with foreign policy :D.
I personally agree that Iraq should not be attacked without UN approval. It was pointed out on a talk show this morning that President Bush stated back in September that any military action would not be a show of US might, but an enforcement of UN authority. What does it then say if the USA and its allies then go ahead and attack Iraq without UN approval?
Iraq should not be attacked without UN approval
agree with that too. at the moment they have no hard evidence and no real reason to go in and ‘smash the place up’.
I also think that the troops were sent in early to put abit of pressure on the decision. Create abit of tension.
It appears that the USA is going to attack them regardless of what may come.
Combine that with the report from Russia yesterday that the attack has been set for the 2nd half of February already.
IMHO, if the US attacks Iraq without international approval they will loose a lot of credit & support worldwide.
And in the long run will make more enemies than friends.
Just my Opinion naturally.
Sing loud…
To the tune of “If you’re happy and you know it”
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistanis looking shifty,
North Koreais too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let’s look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It’s “pre-emptive non-aggression”, bomb Iraq.
Let’s prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They’ve got weapons we can’t see,
And that’s good enough for me
'Cos it’all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam’s gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.
If your corporate fraud is growin’, bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin’, bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding ain’t that easy,
And your manhood’s getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows no borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We’ll call it treason,
Let’s make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
_
What annoys me the most is that our Prime Minister is so far up GWB’s arse that they found him up there when GWB had his colonoscopy. We have only sent off a couple of hundred troops, but to me it is all pretty premature. I hate the thought of good
men & women being put into harm’s way unnecessarily, not to mention how stupid it makes Australia look.
Nice one Serpent
September that any military action would not be a show of US might, but an enforcement of UN authority. What does it then say if the USA and its allies then go ahead and attack Iraq without UN approval?
I think I can explain his logic behind this statement.
Bush argues that he is fighting to uphold the UN resolution that ended the last Gulf War. In his eyes the fact that the UN will not enforce this resolution does not negate our right to enforce it. The resolution is still on the books, the US (and others) paid for the victory in money and blood, and if Saddam acts up five years down the line once he gets his WMD program rolling at full speed the US will likely shoulder a greater responsibility trying to take him out.
Also consider that the first likely target of any Saddam SCUD would be Israel. Israel has traditionally held relatively little influence in the UN (it is in the unaligned voting bloc). Israel is however an ally of the US, which might be shaping our policy in the region.
Originally posted by joedoe
What does it then say if the USA and its allies then go ahead and attack Iraq without UN approval?
that monkeyboys pops coka reserves are hitting shallow and saddam bestta start fronting more oil, before george blows shiat up hiroshima!.
thats how i read it anywho…
Bush himself is a puppet. Howard is Bush’s puppet. That makes him the puppet of a puppet and he’s deliberately ignoring the will of the people and the extreme opposition of the Opposition. How’s that for a clumsy sentence!
Anyway, Howard said that any commitment would be a bilateral decision. Crean stood at the dock and told the troops that he didn’t think they should be going and the huge majority of the Australian public are against our involvment, yet still Howard sends them in. He’s more interested in pleasing Dubya than the country he is supposed to run.
It sickens me how much this country is disappearing up the arse of the US. Something has to give soon. We could solve a huge amount of the problems in the world today by taking out Bush and Howard.
What about N Korea? It has admitted to all the things Iraq is accused of, yet Bush is not interested in war there. Why?
Oil.
Bush’s investment in the cost of this war is going to be offset by enormous profits from oil.
Originally posted by Stranger
[B]
I think I can explain the logic behind this statement, although I do not agree with it.
Bush argues that he is fighting to uphold the UN resolution that ended the last Gulf War. In his eyes the fact that the UN will not enforce this resolution does not negate our right to enforce it. The resolution is still on the books, the US (and others) paid for the victory in money and blood, and if Saddam acts up five years down the line once he gets his WMD program rolling at full speed the US will likely shoulder a greater responsibility trying to take him out.
Also consider that the first likely target of any Saddam SCUD would be Israel. Israel has traditionally held relatively little influence in the UN (it is in the unaligned voting bloc). Israel is however an ally of the US, which might be shaping our policy in the region. [/B]
So if the UN fails to enforce its own resolution the US has a right to do it instead? Interesting. Let me think on that one for a while.
Originally posted by Serpent
[B]What about N Korea? It has admitted to all the things Iraq is accused of, yet Bush is not interested in war there. Why?
Oil.
Bush’s investment in the cost of this war is going to be offset by enormous profits from oil. [/B]
This is also something I have been curious about. Granted, there is a UN resolution prohibiting Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction that doesn’t apply to N Korea (or is there a UN resolution there too?). However, the US didn’t seem to have a problem with India or Pakistan developing & testing nukes, and they are probably the most likely place where a nuclear conflict will erupt.
What about N Korea? It has admitted to all the things Iraq is accused of, yet Bush is not interested in war there. Why?
We have no UN mandate to limit the weapons program in NK, just a national interest in it.
Oil???
Where was the oil plundered in the last war?
I could be wrong, but I highly doubt this great oil robbery scenario. Logistically, how could this be done on any level that would warrant the cost of a Second Gulf War? I believe Collin Powell when he states that the oil would remain the property of the Iraqi people, which is more than what can be said for Saddam’s treatment of the Kuwaiti’s oil when he fled that country.
US didn’t seem to have a problem with India or Pakistan developing &
Once again, there is no UN resolution to control the WMD programs of these countries.
testing nukes,
They violated international treaties when they tested their nukes above ground. We responded with sanctions and no more, because that is our foreign policy when enforcing that treaty (we didn’t declare war on France when they tested above ground a few years back).
N Korea
Besides what Stranger said, everyone knew that North Korea was taking advantage of all the drama to get things that they wanted. They were always fronting knowing that in an effort to get them to back down we would give them almost anything they wanted.
OK, all fair enough.
Back to the original topic, what is the general opinion? Have there been any surveys that give an indication on how the general populace feel about attacking Iraq?
As far as I’ve heard the general consensus in the UK is very similar to Australia. Anyone confirm that?
What about in the US?
What about other countries around the world, even though they may not be involved?
war sux ! I am ashamed for being Australian, I will not be voting for the short red rooster the next election.
My vote goes to the party that will create Australias first autobahn, or the greenies, and not the party that turns Australasia into the United Supporters of America.
Do you think its safe to label Bush the anti-christ now ?!