Who here is against the war on Iraq
- Thread starter dannybek
- Start date
I cannot decide yet. I have been listening to the congressional hearings, and paying attention to the news outlet stories. I regularly tune into NPR as well and listen to their take. It seems like there are legitimate reaons on both sides. Do you think preemptive strike will violate past American policies and ideals on only attacking once attacked? Do you think it's more complex than the US just wanting free flow of oil and moderate govt's in the M.E. to support that?
I think it's a hard choice because there are good and bad reasons for it, and neither is conclusive over the other.
I think it's a hard choice because there are good and bad reasons for it, and neither is conclusive over the other.
Ofcourse we should attack. They have and use chemical weapons, they are actively trying to get nukes. Even if they don't have weapons of mass distruction (which they do and are developing), what's the down side? One less evil dictator in the world is GOOD thing.
<< Do you think preemptive strike will violate past American policies and ideals on only attacking once attacked?>>
Don't know about the policies but it'll definately go against past ideals.
<< Do you think it's more complex than the US just wanting free flow of oil and moderate govt's in the M.E. to support that?>>
I think at a certain level Bush and company really think this is the right way to go, but I also think that the idea of roping the oil isn't a non-issue to those guys.
Should we go to war? I'm not in charge...and it's a good thing I'm not.
If I were, however, I think I'd wait. I don't think I'd be gungho about sending American troops in (and some will die, more than likely) in order to prevent a possibility. I'm not an anti-war peacenik kind of person...it's just that in this instance my opinion is that we should wait, and that we shouldn't be the aggressor.
I'm probably just ignorant but I can't think of any country who has made the initial attack in a war without being the bad guy.
Don't know about the policies but it'll definately go against past ideals.
<< Do you think it's more complex than the US just wanting free flow of oil and moderate govt's in the M.E. to support that?>>
I think at a certain level Bush and company really think this is the right way to go, but I also think that the idea of roping the oil isn't a non-issue to those guys.
Should we go to war? I'm not in charge...and it's a good thing I'm not.
If I were, however, I think I'd wait. I don't think I'd be gungho about sending American troops in (and some will die, more than likely) in order to prevent a possibility. I'm not an anti-war peacenik kind of person...it's just that in this instance my opinion is that we should wait, and that we shouldn't be the aggressor.I'm probably just ignorant but I can't think of any country who has made the initial attack in a war without being the bad guy.
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
I don't think going to war is a good idea at this time. Surely, war will cost thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of lives and billions of dollars.
This is by no means the initial attack. Every day Iraq fires at our Jet's patrolling the no fly zone. Iraq sponcers and supports terrorism on every level. Did you forget what happened 9-11-01? If you think Iraq had nothing to do with it you really aren't paying much attention.
Obviously not me. I know what Bush says about Iraq is nothing but truth. I wonder why it hasn't happened yet. Saddam tortures his people with poverty, while building massive attack forces.
How does Iraq "aid and abet" terrorism? I still haven't seen a single credible piece of evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.
Shouldn't the title read "Who here is a frickin idiot" ??
<-- voted for the war to take down "king" Saddam(y).
nik
<-- voted for the war to take down "king" Saddam(y).
nik
Saddam and Bin laden are enemies, there are no credible ties.
/sarcasm yeee haw !!! we should go to war, what else do we have to do with our 21 2.4 billion dollar bombers! I need cheaper oil for my SUV@! /sarcasm.
%25 of the vehicles use %50 of the gas.
Tim
/sarcasm yeee haw !!! we should go to war, what else do we have to do with our 21 2.4 billion dollar bombers! I need cheaper oil for my SUV@! /sarcasm.
%25 of the vehicles use %50 of the gas.
Tim
Actually, I've been paying quite a bit of attention, and one thing that I've noticed is that there is absolutely no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Islamist terrorists.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Zakath15
Originally posted by: Lucky
Bah, who needs those arabs? Just drop a nuke over em!
only if we can hit Berkeley next
OMFG, that's the coolest thing I've heard all day
nik
Islamic terrorists are not a threat to our national security.
EDIT: Palestinian Islamic terrorists.
Wtheck did you define as National security ? Those islamist terorist pig that flew an airplane into a building is a threat to us all.
i think we should stand around debating it to death until iraq gets some good nerve gas to a terrorist cell within the US and they release it in a highly populated urban area and many thousands of people die from it
that way there will be less opposition to us wiping them out
that way there will be less opposition to us wiping them out
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Zakath15
Originally posted by: Lucky
Bah, who needs those arabs? Just drop a nuke over em!
only if we can hit Berkeley next
OMFG, that's the coolest thing I've heard all day
nik
HAHA....somebody had to say it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter