http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3055075.stmhere's some of the highlights:
"Personally, I have little doubt that evidence of weapons will be found. But what will an inquiry truly accomplish? In this era, global mistrust of America is unconditional. You cannot say the discovery of WMD will satisfy the anti-war camp, and they'll lay down their swords and go home. Most likely, we'll be debating another diabolical US conspiracy. It was clear before the war that Bush would not win global support, regardless of the outcome. There is nothing that Bush can find or say to please the whole world - or even the majority - at this point. Only history will prove who's "right" or "wrong".
Steve, US
To Steve from US: History is almost always written by the side that wins. So don't put that much trust in history.
Oumer, Denmark Ethiopia
A response to Steve US: If history is the only assessor of the "right" or "wrong" this means that in the meantime Mr Bush or any other powerful leader can do whatever he wants. I think that we should use "lawful" and "unlawful". Then the assessment is not made by history but the law.
Aris, UK
To Steve, US : How much searching will it take before you admit there is no basis for your belief? Also, the one thing that George Bush can do which will win global support is this: admit he was wrong and apologise.
John M, UK
There are a number of comments that indicate some fuzziness about the rules of war. Both UK and USA are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, one of which prohibits "aggressive" war. Only defensive war is permitted. This alone may explain all the hoopla about WMD and clear and present danger and 45 minutes to launch and all the rest of it. Whether there is ethical justification for ridding the world of brutal tyrants, there is no legal justification for it. I believe the USA wanted to invade Iraq, not because of oil, and not because of Saddam, but because Iraq presented the best available opportunity for the US to try out its domino theory of democracy among the Arab nations in the Middle East.
Andrew Hingston, USA
All those here saying that liberating Iraqi people from the tyrant was a perfectly good reason to go to war, I would like to ask: is it then about time now to occupy Zimbabwe, Burma, China, Turkmenistan and a good dozen more countries and end sufferings of Zimbabweans, Burmese, Chinese and Turkmen's respectively? Also, what is the cut-off level of sufferings after which occupation is legitimate? Do sufferings of millions due to poverty and corrupt governments qualify? If yes, then another 30-40 countries should be surely put on the waiting list as well. Good luck, guys! Good job I'm not a British or American taxpayer!
Michael, Netherlands
The WMDs will be found, let there be no doubt! But, those will be the ones planted by US-UK governments after the War, a hundred feet below surface.
Kaleem Khan, India"
they are still accepting comments and the poll is still up.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(289 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
