Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by John3v36, Dec 18, 2002.
Should we go to WAR!
Why or Why not?
This would have been a good poll. If the UN inspectors come up with concrete evidence of the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction - yes. If not - no.
You hear people ask, "why must America be the police force of the world?" We don't except when the middle east is concerned. If Sadaam has weapons of mass destruction we will be the primary target because of our support of Israel. Middle eastern countries hate us for that reason. So, when we go to war, we will be protecting ourselves.
I do wish it were as simple as the movies make it look - send the dirty dozen in there and take out Sadaam!!
This may be a really stupid question, but who is allowed to have weapons of mass destruction? Us and who else?
If Saddam should suddenly renounce all use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, begins immediately to destroy those that he has under the supervision of the UN, then we should not go to war.
But he will not and we must go to war in order to prevent greater evil.
Given that Iraq has continuously violated the terms of teh resolution that ended the Gulf War, thus nullifying it, we're already at war and have been for the last ten years.
There's just been a lull in the fighting.
Well, well! Let me say--if Saddam DOES have weapons of mass destruction--and lets just say that in that stockpile---there are about 3-4 missiles that are capable of reaching the US--doesn't really have to be an accurate aim--just lob 'um all over at us--the way I figure--he had better send 'um all over here at one time--ever how many he has--because that's all he's gonna have time for---his little weaklin' nation will be dust--when the first missile pops up on our AWAC's radar screen--there, what about that!!
If we wished to turn that country into dust, we could quite easily. But, if we want to conduct urban warfare without destroying all the buildings and killing and maiming a large percentage of the population (as in WW II), then it will not be so easy.
We should be prepared for more casualties and a longer duration than Desert Storm.
It seems to me that troops will have to go in all the towns and cities and search building by building. That is an ideal setting for a desperate defender. The easiest way to deal with that kind of defense is to just blow up all the buildings, but that is not the American way. I just wanted to warn ya'll.
One question before this thing takes a life of its own... How many on here have ever been to War?... I have in Vietnam... Any others?... Brother Glen Of The Primitive Baptist Brethren
Nope. I'm a girl, and never had to register to any selective service, and I'm young enough not to have encountered the draft anyway.
As it is, I'd be a conscientious objector.
Out of curiosity, are you asking out of curiosity of your own, or for some other reason?
[ December 18, 2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: stubbornkelly ]
I am active duty now and have served in several operations and have had scary moments but never actually been in war.
I applaud everyone in uniform now and anyone who served before me.
Yep. Been there done that. Only as a last resort, should this country go to war. I frankly don't trust G. W. Bush any further than I can throw him. I truly believe he is trying to avenge his father's mistakes in the Gulf in 1990-91, at the risk of young men and women.
why don't the west also enforce the un mandates against israel?
No. That is an excellent question.
The answer would be nations civilized enough not to use them to conquer other nations.
I personally don't like the whole UN angle at all. If Sadaam threatens the US or a treaty bound ally then we should commit to a decisive action. His possession of those weapons is really not our business and the UN has no right to inspect a sovereign nation.
The UN is a fulfillment of Jefferson's warning about democracies. It is no more the mob rule that denies the rights of the minority. Any power that we give them to handle Iraq may eventually be turned on us.
I think Sadaam is a certifiable nut... but I think the same thing about most of the European "socialistic democracies"... as well as most American liberals. That said, it is not my right to force them into my way of thinking or acting unless it is a matter of self-defense.
If we go to war, I think it should be with N. Korea, not Iraq, or why not the WHOLE AXIS OF EVIL???? What is Mr. Bush trying to do, get us into WW III??? I respect the men and women in uniform, but I would hate to see lives lost over the motive Mr. Bush has.
And you think it would be any less so if we went to war with North Korea?
And just what is his motive?
What about the captured document the Israelis got from the PLO that shows Iraq funding terrorist activity around the world?
Does that make a difference?