Why war is necessary

[Dari]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

after 9/11, can any sane leader take a chance of a marriage between terrorist cells and outlaw regimes?

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Fixed your <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.jbs.org/" target=blank>linky</A>

it was fixed several posts ago. Please don't dwell on it...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
because of this stupid war, gas prices are rising and there are huge bugdet cuts. not to mention, making the economy worse then it already is.

OK so to appease you we shouldn't rid a country of a tyrant who violated the terms of the cease fire? Just so you can gobble up cheap gas?
And what does the economy have to do with whether or not to go to war? our economic state doesn't mean squat in ANY war decision. So if the war helped the economy you'd agree with military action?

GAC

CADkindaGUY

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

after 9/11, can any sane leader take a chance of a marriage between terrorist cells and outlaw regimes?

And what marriage is that?

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
......

NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

The CIA knows something? LOL That would be a change.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

after 9/11, can any sane leader take a chance of a marriage between terrorist cells and outlaw regimes?

And what marriage is that?

remember al-qaeda and Afghanistan? Remember that? that's an example. another would be hezbollah and Iran. another would be hamas and the PLO.

 

[Gnurb]

how in the hell did you get into berkeley!!!??

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

after 9/11, can any sane leader take a chance of a marriage between terrorist cells and outlaw regimes?

And what marriage is that?

remember al-qaeda and Afghanistan? Remember that? that's an example. another would be hezbollah and Iran. another would be hamas and the PLO.

Yes, yes. How does that relate to Iraq?

 

[iwearnosox]

THey're in the way. We need to bulldoze Iraq to effectively get to Afghanistan and Iran.

Duh.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

after 9/11, can any sane leader take a chance of a marriage between terrorist cells and outlaw regimes?

And what marriage is that?

remember al-qaeda and Afghanistan? Remember that? that's an example. another would be hezbollah and Iran. another would be hamas and the PLO.

Yes, yes. How does that relate to Iraq?

how long until the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend? how long until the marriage is finalized? Who will bomb first? Once the marriage is intact and the transfer of funds and equipment flows from the state to the cells, who can stop it?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

after 9/11, can any sane leader take a chance of a marriage between terrorist cells and outlaw regimes?

And what marriage is that?

remember al-qaeda and Afghanistan? Remember that? that's an example. another would be hezbollah and Iran. another would be hamas and the PLO.

Yes, yes. How does that relate to Iraq?

how long until the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend? how long until the marriage is finalized? Who will bomb first? Once the marriage is intact and the transfer of funds and equipment flows from the state to the cells, who can stop it?

By your logic, we should attack every country in the world.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since: 1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands 2. those demands have not be fulfilled 3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach 4. iraq is in material breach in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

after 9/11, can any sane leader take a chance of a marriage between terrorist cells and outlaw regimes?

And what marriage is that?

remember al-qaeda and Afghanistan? Remember that? that's an example. another would be hezbollah and Iran. another would be hamas and the PLO.

Yes, yes. How does that relate to Iraq?

how long until the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend? how long until the marriage is finalized? Who will bomb first? Once the marriage is intact and the transfer of funds and equipment flows from the state to the cells, who can stop it?

Following this logic you are obliged to kill everyone everywhere who might one day become a threat. If you are this fearful, you will always find something to scare you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL Her- GMTA!

 

[Dufman]

Originally posted by: Broohaha
Amen brutha.

"Give war a chance"

people protest every war...i cringe when i think what could have happen if we didnt take hitler out before germany got to be HUGE again

can you say, germany occupation of the US???

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Gnurb
how in the hell did you get into berkeley!!!??

valedictorian, 1470 on SAT's, extracurriculars, community service, etc...

not by affirmative action.

Eddy

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since: 1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands 2. those demands have not be fulfilled 3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach 4. iraq is in material breach in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

after 9/11, can any sane leader take a chance of a marriage between terrorist cells and outlaw regimes?

And what marriage is that?

remember al-qaeda and Afghanistan? Remember that? that's an example. another would be hezbollah and Iran. another would be hamas and the PLO.

Yes, yes. How does that relate to Iraq?

how long until the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend? how long until the marriage is finalized? Who will bomb first? Once the marriage is intact and the transfer of funds and equipment flows from the state to the cells, who can stop it?

Following this logic you are obliged to kill everyone everywhere who might one day become a threat. If you are this fearful, you will always find something to scare you.

no. but all the pieces are in place when it comes to iraq. the time is now to deal with this dictator named saddam. this guy should have been liquidated a long time ago.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

You really believe Sadaam will be the one killed in the war?

Good one.

you have reason to think otherwise?

 

[Electrode]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

You really believe Sadaam will be the one killed in the war?

Good one.

you have reason to think otherwise?

No, of course not! After seeing how we found and killed Osama (who is still producing tapes from beyond the grave apparently) who would ever believe the hunt for Saddam would be any different?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Electrode

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

You really believe Sadaam will be the one killed in the war?

Good one.

you have reason to think otherwise?

No, of course not! After seeing how we found and killed Osama (who is still producing tapes from beyond the grave apparently) who would ever believe the hunt for Saddam would be any different?

saddam has a return address. bin laden did not.

 

[etech]

That is a very good point that should be made.

People keep refering to the future action as "war against Iraq". It's semantics but the action being taken is not and would not be directed against the people of Iraq but against Saddam's regime.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech
That is a very good point that should be made. People keep refering to the future action as "war against Iraq". It's semantics but the action being taken is not and would not be directed against the people of Iraq but against Saddam's regime.

The actions may be against Saddams regime, but the people will be taking bullets. Semantics will not matter to them.

 

[Electrode]

Originally posted by: etech
but the action being taken is not and would not be directed against the people of Iraq but against Saddam's regime.

And yet, if you disagree with Bush, you are anti-american. That makes sense.

 

[Davegod75]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
i would only support war if there was an imminent danger. like if saddam was just about to launch some nukes or sell them to terrorists or something. i do think the US has a right to war since:
1. gulf war ended in peace treaty and the cease-fire is contingent on iraq following some demands
2. those demands have not be fulfilled
3. un resolution 1441 allowed for war if iraq was in material breach
4. iraq is in material breach

in the end, saddam will never disarm, he will never peacefully leave office. so unless he is assassinated, war is ultimately necessary. i just don't think it's necessary NOW, UNLESS the CIA knows something about Iraq's plans for imminent action.

addition: possibly the desire to enter war now is to go in and take care of business before the summer when it gets hot and stuff.

there is much the public doesn't know and will never know. and these are the reasons we must disarm saddam

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: etech
That is a very good point that should be made. People keep refering to the future action as "war against Iraq". It's semantics but the action being taken is not and would not be directed against the people of Iraq but against Saddam's regime.

The actions may be against Saddams regime, but the people will be taking bullets. Semantics will not matter to them.

so we shouldn't go to war because people will die? is that your point? we should twiddle our fingers and do nothing and wait for the future generation to deal with a bigger problem because people will die? more people will die in the future if we don't take care of this problem now.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: etech
That is a very good point that should be made.

People keep refering to the future action as "war against Iraq". It's semantics but the action being taken is not and would not be directed against the people of Iraq but against Saddam's regime.

Tell that to the women and children that were forced into the factories by Saddam before it was bombed.