Road rules6 mins ago
not enough news questions?
6 Answers
OK here's one then - This man has weapons of mass destruction at his disposal and isn't afraid to use them. So should we do something about him? (And i'll let you decide whether i'm talking about Blair, Bush, or Hussein)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by darth vader. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Funny you should say this, but I've just been reading in the paper how the U.S. have plans to use nuclear weapons against deeply buried strategic sites that would be impervious to conventional weapons. Would we see UN sanctions against the U.S. then - of course not. I'm afraid I can't agree with attacking a country just because they are potentially going to perform an act of agression against another nation. By this logic any country could justify attacking the U.S. right now. This could be the thin end of the wedge,although I suppose it depends how many sadistic dictators are oil rich! Unfortunately the use of force has its place - but this is not it.
Totally agree with what has been said so far. If that ventriloquist and our dummy of a premier do go ahead and attack Iraq without a UN resolution, then they are acting no better than street thugs who take the law into their own hands. They are trying so hard to convince us all that there are reasons for such an attack, such as accusing Iraq of hiding weapons or having links with Al Quaeda, but they can provide no irrefutable evidence of either of these claims. The US doesn't send its criminals to the electric chair without irrefutable evidence of their crime, but is happy to send thousands of its, and our, innocent troops to die for a sham of a cause.