Just flicking through some HC posts about the potential 'looming' war in Iraq.
Obviously most pro war posters on HC do not share the views of a majority of Australians, and indeed, a majority of all people across the planet about the merit of unilateral war in Iraq.
It never ceases to amaze me that extreme views continue to find their way into this forum.
It is good we at least have the unfettered opportunity to air our views and not be castigated for doing so (on the whole). This freedom, we all believe, should be universal.
Some discussions I have recently read on HC talk about our collective Western values as opposed to the terror Saddam Hussein imposes upon his own people. This is commonly used as an adjunct and justification for war in Iraq.
Without declaring support or opposition to war in Iraq, I wonder whether those HC posters who regularly post on this topic, could objectively respond to the following, as it remains a major sticking point in my thinking, and I guess the thinking of others around the place.
If Australia should be so keen to unilaterally declare war on Iraq, as Iraq poses major threats to our collective values of freedom, etc...., why then will it not declare war on (or disarm) Zimbabwe, North Korea, China, etc..?
In the context of objective thinking, why is it so that the 'great powers' will not uphold its' values in other countries that supress freedoms?
Why is it also the case that other countries have weapons of mass destruction, yet do not attract the attention Iraq has? One can argue that Iraq is a dictatorship that supresses its' own people. But I ask, what is the difference between that situation and similar situations with such places as former USSR states, North Korea, Pakistan, etc...
Please don't think I fail to understand the 'real' potential economic reasoning behind all this Iraq business.
I am just testing the case from the war proponents to see whether I can receive any responses answering the questions I have posed.
