(no subject)

[andrewducker]

More on Iraq. This time a Guardian editorial.

War with Iraq may yet not come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government, we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force. That is not because we have not agonised, as have so many of our readers and those who demonstrated across the country yesterday, about what is right. It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world.

Comments

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that argument would be all very well if "military action" meant a single thing that would inevitably lead to free democracy for Iraq. However, military action to free Kuwait led to the reinstallation of a dictatorship, but it met the US's military aims (free the oil, not the people). In this case, the military aims will be... what? Get control of oil? "End terrorism"? Raise Bush's image? Either way, freedom for the people of Iraq probably isn't right up there.

get a life

[(Anonymous)]

All people think about is war! you all get so hung up on it it becomes part of our lives before its started, the innocent troops out there now, just waiting for the start! Shut up and leave it, what will be will be, do yu think that all this rubbish will help??? Writing about the future never benefited anyone!!!