I've reached a conclusion on war. Update: Conclusion not reached

[WinkOsmosis]

It's unecessary at this point in time. I cannot, in good conscience, support an unecessary war, no matter how much fake evidence Bush comes up with, especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). That is all.

Edit: I'm not saying I don't believe Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction". I'm saying that I don't believe disarming a country is reason to potentially destroy the world. Stretched connections between terrorism and future usage of "WMD" by terrorists that prey on the fear of Americans are not reasons for a war.

 

[falconx80]

i agree, i feel no threat from saddam.

I feel more threatented by N Korea.

 

[wnied]

I cannot, in good conscience, support an unecessary war

Then dont. If you dont support one now, how about a few years down the road when you and your family are gassed or nuked dead due to a terrorist who got his WOMD from Saddams regime for a few items he couldnt get due to UN embargos?

Maybe seeing half this countries citizens wrapped in body bags will change the minds of the Anti-War protestors of today. Our inaction of today, seals our fate in the future.

~wnied~

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: falconx80
i agree, i feel no threat from saddam.

I feel more threatented by N Korea.

everyone feels this way... silly Bush!!!!

 

[Moonbeam]

I feel more threatened by Bush.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Yield

Originally posted by: falconx80
i agree, i feel no threat from saddam.

I feel more threatented by N Korea.

everyone feels this way... silly Bush!!!!

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
It's unecessary at this point in time. I cannot, in good conscience, support an unecessary war, no matter how much fake evidence Bush comes up with, especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). That is all.

I'm not exactly pro-war, but think about what you just said.

A) You believe Saddam Hussein, murderer and tyrant, over the word of President George Bush of the United States of America. Who do you figure is a tiny bit more accountable to his citizens?
B) Do you know of a single Iraqi migrant who doesn't hate Saddam and wish him dead? Those rallies in his favour are approximately 1000% BS. You saw the march of women with rifles over in Baghdad that one time? Unless you figure that those women like being treated like objects, no matter how 'used to it' they've become, I don't exactly figure on them being happy with the society they live in.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I feel more threatened by Bush.

hehe moonie strikes again.

R U always on moonbeam?

 

[nick1985]

im more scared of saddam than bush

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: wnied
I cannot, in good conscience, support an unecessary war

Then dont. If you dont support one now, how about a few years down the road when you and your family are gassed or nuked dead due to a terrorist who got his WOMD from Saddams regime for a few items he couldnt get due to UN embargos?

Maybe seeing half this countries citizens wrapped in body bags will change the minds of the Anti-War protestors of today. Our inaction of today, seals our fate in the future.

~wnied~

How will you feel when you finally realize that it was your nation's brinkmanship and agression that started World War III?

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
It's unecessary at this point in time. I cannot, in good conscience, support an unecessary war, no matter how much fake evidence Bush comes up with, especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). That is all.

I'm not exactly pro-war, but think about what you just said.

A) You believe Saddam Hussein, murderer and tyrant, over the word of President George Bush of the United States of America. Who do you figure is a tiny bit more accountable to his citizens?
B) Do you know of a single Iraqi migrant who doesn't hate Saddam and wish him dead? Those rallies in his favour are approximately 1000% BS. You saw the march of women with rifles over in Baghdad that one time? Unless you figure that those women like being treated like objects, no matter how 'used to it' they've become, I don't exactly figure on them being happy with the society they live in.

What does the fact that Saddam Hussein is a bad man have to do with war? Think about what war is. It isn't just going there and taking Saddam out. War is hell, if you don't mind the cliche, and since we waited until 2003, this war could escalate into something no one on this forum can possibly imagine.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
What does the fact that Saddam Hussein is a bad man have to do with war? Think about what war is. It isn't just going there and taking Saddam out. War is hell, if you don't mind the cliche, and since we waited until 2003, this war could escalate into something no one on this forum can possibly imagine.

LOL you say saddam isn't a threat but then say "since we waited too long" the war could be a disaster--which side are you on.
You know what, they said the same thing about Hitler: hitler's a bad man but why do we have to goto war with him.
Just remember what Edmund Burke said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
It's unecessary at this point in time. I cannot, in good conscience, support an unecessary war, no matter how much fake evidence Bush comes up with, especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). That is all.

I'm not exactly pro-war, but think about what you just said.

A) You believe Saddam Hussein, murderer and tyrant, over the word of President George Bush of the United States of America. Who do you figure is a tiny bit more accountable to his citizens?
B) Do you know of a single Iraqi migrant who doesn't hate Saddam and wish him dead? Those rallies in his favour are approximately 1000% BS. You saw the march of women with rifles over in Baghdad that one time? Unless you figure that those women like being treated like objects, no matter how 'used to it' they've become, I don't exactly figure on them being happy with the society they live in.

What does the fact that Saddam Hussein is a bad man have to do with war? Think about what war is. It isn't just going there and taking Saddam out. War is hell, if you don't mind the cliche, and since we waited until 2003, this war could escalate into something no one on this forum can possibly imagine.

So we should wait even longer for when his military is even stronger.

 

[przero]

And what would you have thought of Hitler?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
What does the fact that Saddam Hussein is a bad man have to do with war? Think about what war is. It isn't just going there and taking Saddam out. War is hell, if you don't mind the cliche, and since we waited until 2003, this war could escalate into something no one on this forum can possibly imagine.

LOL you say saddam isn't a threat but then say "since we waited too long" the war could be a disaster--which side are you on.
You know what, they said the same thing about Hitler: hitler's a bad man but why do we have to goto war with him.
Just remember what Edmund Burke said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Yes we waited too long. What that means is we have put the world at danger. I see no problem with proceeding with caution. I see a huge problem with rushing to start war. I honestly believe that our government is this eager because of war's effect on the economy. After waiting 12 years, where's the harm in waiting another year for the situation to smooth out? To me it looks miniscule compared to the harm in attacking NOW NOW NOW.

 

[achiral]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: wnied
I cannot, in good conscience, support an unecessary war

Then dont. If you dont support one now, how about a few years down the road when you and your family are gassed or nuked dead due to a terrorist who got his WOMD from Saddams regime for a few items he couldnt get due to UN embargos?

Maybe seeing half this countries citizens wrapped in body bags will change the minds of the Anti-War protestors of today. Our inaction of today, seals our fate in the future.

~wnied~

How will you feel when you finally realize that it was your nation's brinkmanship and agression that started World War III?

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

take your own advice

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
What does the fact that Saddam Hussein is a bad man have to do with war? Think about what war is. It isn't just going there and taking Saddam out. War is hell, if you don't mind the cliche, and since we waited until 2003, this war could escalate into something no one on this forum can possibly imagine.

LOL you say saddam isn't a threat but then say "since we waited too long" the war could be a disaster--which side are you on.
You know what, they said the same thing about Hitler: hitler's a bad man but why do we have to goto war with him.
Just remember what Edmund Burke said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Yes we waited too long. What that means is we have put the world at danger. I see no problem with proceeding with caution. I see a huge problem with rushing to start war. I honestly believe that our government is this eager because of war's effect on the economy. After waiting 12 years, where's the harm in waiting another year for the situation to smooth out? To me it looks miniscule compared to the harm in attacking NOW NOW NOW.

What possible good will it do to just wait another year?

Twelve years is long enough and a final chance is just that, a final chance. He had his and has not met the requirements.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

 

[achiral]

he did take over land

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: achiral
take your own advice

I know the implications of quoting Gandalf. I don't see all ends, which is why I want to proceed with caution. Not too hard to figure out.

 

[achiral]

all i was saying by that is that it seemed kind of one sided the way you used that

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I feel more threatened by Bush.

I hear ya there!!

Ausm

 

[ToBeMe]

LMAO..................like anyones support or non-support means jack.......................we're going to deal with Iraq, then we'll deal with N.K., those are facts and only the timetable is in question.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

Hitler was never a threat to America either. In his wildest dreams, Hitler never had any plans to attack America.

Soemtimes you must remove evil people, that's just how it is.

: ) Hopper

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

Stalin is a better comparison to Saddam since Saddam has a fascination with him and has shaped the government of his country after him.

The comparison to Hitler was valid before the Gulf War. Saddam had an army that was the fourth? largest in the world. He invaded another country and it took the US to remove him from it. In this case though the leader lived and was put on probation. He has not met the terms of that probation. It is time to deal with him for that failure.

edit/ cannot spell this morning.