Made your choice? long, but raises issues!!!

[Anonymous]

Hey, why is it that we get to name ourselves the allied forces and we stick our enemies with the infamous "axis of evil?" As if we're so righteous.

[Lysear]

I woke up this morning and went to the pub for a pint and a sunday roast. I checked my watch and then to my horror I realised that it was the 16th march. Tomorow my country could be at war. What did I have to show for 6 months deliberation? Nothing, I still hadn't decided which side of the argument I was comming in on. I have to admit it wasn't easy.having considered both the arguments for supporting this war and then the arguments condemning it I have reached a decision. I have decided to be anti-war. This is slightly humerous to me as I often find myself fuming about anti-war protestors, just going along to hold up a placard and gain some "street cred." Yes, there are plenty of these people around and it makes my blood boil watching them being interviewed, grinning away harping on about how war is bad, but not even giving a reason. I am far from one of these people. It was agony to chose a side as I believe there are good points made on both sides. I do however hold the belief that in any situation, you have to chose sides. Sitting on the fence is not an option, but sadly many people do just that. sitting on the fence achieves nothing apart from a useless talking shop, and the world didnt get to where it is today by talk.

I have made my decision based on numerous factors.
(1) the plain and sickly alterior motives of the "allied forces", if they wanted to topple Saddam Hussein for humanitarian reasons then why did they not do this over the last 12 years? answer= they now have the perfect oppertunity to do whatever they like post sept 11th. They have a blank cheque and the tools to use to enforce their will upon others.

(2) The bare faced hipocracy of the "Good Guys" Accusing Saddam Hussein of being a tyrant is one thing. Accusing him of treating people inhumainly is plainly another. Since when has the U.S.A ever stuck to the lines laid out in the Geneva convention (the Geneva convention met in the late 1950's at the end of the Korean war) We have the examples of the murder of countless Vietnamese, citezens of Laos and Cambodia with absolutly no proof that they were doing anything wrong. And lets not forget the use of economic sanctions! what a wonderful and humanitarian tool these are!! the only people who have suffered through sanctions in Iraq are the ordinary citizens. In Cuba, economic sanctions have crippled them, and all for what? being caught between a rock and a hard place in the 1960's. Whichever side they supported in the cold war they would have been in trouble. And finally, lets not forget the prisioners at Guantanamo bay (Cuba!!) these people are being held with no proof, chance of appeal and practically forgotten by the world.

(3)Iraq is a disgusting sideshow which is an attempt to make it look like something is being done about the war on terrorism. Wheres Bin-laden? and why havent they caught other key al-quieda figures? (okay so one or two they have caught but come on!)

(4) If the U.S and U.K etc are attacking Iraq for their human rights records then thats all fine and well. But why don't they attack Israel, China and various despicable regimes in Latin America? Let me attempt to answer that, its because there are allied interests there! They won't attack Israel because they are an important ally, America's "project" they are geographically positioned to help America's postion in the world. China is a keyu player in the U.N security council and too powerful for the U.S to defeat so they're left alone. There is a important word which sums all this, Appeasment. This "bad word" brings up images from the past, 1938 to be exact. The Munich conference where it was decided by world leaders in their wisdom to let the Nazi's get on with it for a few years and go to war later on!

Anyway I've gone on for long enough. I am well aware that I have only scraped the surface and not even covered the other side of the argument, but I am going to leave that to others over the next few weeks. I am also aware that America has been scapegoated here. This is intentional as its the U.S that is the worst offeneder, followed closely by as disgusting, immoral weasley Tony Blair of Great Britain, not to mention others. So I would appreciated a good argument on this issue.