updates on the current crisis

The United States has hit targets in Libya and Sudan, saying they were linked to terrorism, and using a combination of retaliation and pre-emption as justification.

Mr. Bush told Americans in June they should prepare for pre-emptive action "when necessary," and the new document broadens his arguments for it. "The impulse isn't new, but the willingness to state it bluntly is," said David Welch, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto.

Talk of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq has awakened fears that others would use it as a pretext for unilateral action.

Russia has threatened to attack Chechen rebel camps in neighbouring Georgia, saying it must combat terrorism. French President Jacques Chirac said recently that China might cite a U.S. strike as a precedent in support of an attack on Taiwan.

Apparently seeking to meet such objections, the Bush document says: "The United States will not use force in all cases to pre-empt emerging threats, nor should nations use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression."

Well my friends, I for one am not only saddened but terrified to live in a world like this.
I'm not often scared, far from it in fact, but the power that George Bush holds in his hands this moment, and what he intends to do with it is a devastating thought.
What can we do?
Can we do anything?
Can we sit and watch the world around us fall apart?
Would anyone listen anyway?
There are many questions without answers.
Perhaps the most awe inspiring aspect of this whole issue is that Bush really doen't have a proper reson for attack, he simply wants to retain America's status as the most powerful country in the world.
Yes, something is a little reminiscent of Hitler here.
We, as British citizens, of course are involved. Can we trust Tony Blair to do the right thing by this country and the opinion of the people, or are we once again being dragged in as America's lapdogs? Isn't that clear?
I forsee many many tears.

I feel the other side should be represented here.

Fair enough, the war on iraq is unneccesary, but would you prefer full blown nuclear war in which thousands upon millions of innocent citizens are killed, or a short military strike in which (relatively) few people are killed?

If Saddam Hussein does have nuclear weapons, or the capabilities for them, I would prefer him not to have them. With his current views on america, the world is safer with either america or iraq disarmed.

I'm not condoning George Bush. I'm not saying he's any better than Saddam Hussein, or there's any difference between the dangers of their nuclear capabilities. I'm just trying to see a different side of the events.

And here comes my countering of my own arguement.


In fifteen years time, will a boy whos parents were killed in the attacks on Iraq thank george bush for "liberating" him, or will he be taking up arms to fight america?

If george bush had killed my parents, i'll openly admit that I would not hesitate to take a plane and crash it so far up his a*s, even tony blair's tongue wouldn't be able to reach it.