Sheffield’s council of war
In the week that Parliament discussed Tony Blair's justification for conflict against Saddam Hussein, arguments continue to grow about the likelihood that this country will soon be at war with Iraq. But what do young people in Sheffield think? Young reporters from Children's Express interviewed their peers.
| Bush says he still doesn’t trust Saddam - but which of them is the more dangerous? |
Nadine, 14, Sheffield
"I don't think Britain should support America in war with Iraq because it's absolutely nothing to do with Britain and can cause many problems here. If there is a war, Iraq would be totally ruined and the Iraqi people's lives would be totally ruined also - the houses they live in, everything, would be destroyed.
"If America didn't go to war, I think Saddam Hussein would carry on as normal. I doubt very much that he would attack us. He's not a danger to the world, he's a danger to his country and his people.
"I can't really imagine what war would be like for young people our age because I've never had that experience. But I'm sure it would ruin our chances in life and make a mark on our lives, because we would always remember that war.
"I think other Muslim countries would side with Iraq. I'm not sure if other countries would side with the US and Britain. The UN would probably just leave well alone if America and Britain go to war without their backing, because they think its not their problem. It's not their country that's getting ruined. They want nothing to do with it."
Saarah Choudhury, 16, Woodseats
"I am disgusted with the idea that politicians - people entrusted with such great power - could even contemplate the idea of war with whatever country for whatever reason.
"I am even more disgusted that America is considering going to war against a country and leader who they spent a long time supporting.
"If the war with Iraq goes ahead, it will be the civilians who get hurt. Mr Evil Dictator Saddam Hussein will escape without even a scratch on his little toe. And, come on, how much of a threat really is Iraq to, like, the rest of mankind?
"Britain hasn't got a problem with it - especially considering that we are too far away from Iraq. Besides, Britain has its own nerve gas problems caused by secret experiments conducted by Sir Winston Churchill shortly after the Second World War.
"So why should Tony Blair be so desperate to support this US decision? Surely we should be strong enough to stand up for ourselves, and resist the temptation to continue as America's lap dogs?
"Anyway, imagine what it would be like if someone waged war on us. There would be panic, upset, chaos. We wouldn't like it one bit. And neither do the many innocent people living in Iraq today."
Tom, 14, Sheffield
"Britain should support America in a war with Iraq. There is obviously a force that needs to be reckoned with in Iraq and it poses a danger to the international community.
"The consequences would ultimately be beneficial, with the establishment of a new regime in Iraq which would help the people live more constructive lives.
"If the UN ignores America, it will lose its credibility as an international peace keeping force because it will have deserted the principles on which it was founded. If America doesn't go to war, the threat Saddam Hussein poses will continue and I think we'll see
events like September 11th in London, Paris or Berlin.
"Sanctions haven't affected him, but they have brought hardship to civilians. If we can remove Saddam Hussein from power there will be a better life for them, as well as for the international community. We can improve the standards of life for people in Afghanistan, so why we can't we do that in Iraq or wherever else the war on terrorism takes us?
"Nobody would wish war upon any place in the world, but it shows young people that anybody who poses a threat to the international community doesn't have the right to do that and should be removed."
Jenny Matthews, 16, Beighton
"Everyone I've talked to recently has an unshakeable belief that Bush should not invade Iraq, and Tony Blair shouldn't either. Arguments range from hatred of Bush's greed for oil, to his failure to catch Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein agreeing to weapons inspections. In my view, all these arguments miss the point entirely.
"There is a real reason for Bush and Blair to invade Iraq. Basically, Saddam Hussein has the means and the inclination to destroy the world and its inhabitants. He practices ethnic cleansing and murder, and has been an instigator of war and a dictator. Some people have compared him to Hitler. If these facts are correct, surely he should be stopped? No two ways about it.
"But do we have the right to stop him? Why should Britain and the US have the right to nuke Iraq, and not vice versa? Are we more civilised than the people of Iraq? Probably not. But I like to think that our leaders are more civilised than Hussein. By its nature, war would not be on Hussein - although it might affect him - but on the people of Iraq, and possibly the UK and the US. It could be more brutal and devastating than WW2.
"My view is that Hussein must be stopped. But war is definitely not the answer. I have no clue what that is - but, thankfully, that's not my job."
Wei Jun Chung, 15, Ringinglow
"One year after the terrorist attack on the world trade centre, President Bush's promise to capture Osama Bin Laden still hasn't been fulfilled. Now war against Saddam Hussein seems more and more likely.
"But I can't help wondering why the American government is so keen to eliminate someone who hasn't even troubled the national newspapers recently. Could this be an attempt to win back waning support from the American public? If so, it's a huge mistake. Anyone who watched snippets of the United Nations conference would have seen the opposition from the majority of the world.
"Maybe Bush is just on a guilt trip over failing to locate Bin Laden. There are also suspicions that the only thing Bush wants to attack is the abundance of oil in Iraq. With America's colossal contribution to global pollution, is it any wonder they're worried about dwindling oil supplies?
"And now that Saddam Hussein has agreed to weapons inspections, why hasn't Bush changed his mind? He says he still doesn't trust Hussein - but which of them is the more dangerous?
"Whatever Bush's reasons, maybe people should rethink their phraseology when they describe what could lead to the third world war. Is it really a war against Saddam Hussein or a war against Iraq?"
About the team
This story was produced by Philip Liu and Laura Smith, 14, and Holly Gilway, 13. It was published in the Sheffield Telegraph.
