Those of you who are Pro War

[Ffactor]

I've been reading these threads for a while and I'd like to ask you what it is specifically that you like about going to war with Iraq. It seems like people in general associate war with being "conservative" and anti-war with being "liberal". So far it seems like we have the following facts:

- Still no evidence of weapons of mass destruction
- European press reporting no direct link between Iraq and al-qaeda
- France, Germany, China, Russia all opposing war at this point
- Britain is the only supporter, however, 70% of British people are against war

Reasons thus far for war:

- George Bush thinks it's a good idea
- Possible link between Iraq and al-qaeda
- Iraq may posess weapons of mass destruction

So, what are your reasons. I know that this means an increase in military spending so if you are in the military you are more than likely to be pro-war. The reason I am asking is that I have a tough time with the loss of life both American and foreign. I am not going to be fighting in this war and am concerned for those American soldiers who are there and might not come back and also the thousands of Iraqi civilians, women and children who will die. If you are Jewish or Moslem do not reply because we all know what you are going to say. I want to see how we all justify the loss of human lives.

 

[Y_lifter]

I look at the situation in Oregon with kids being let out of
School a month early due to state budget shortages..

How much of the Mil Billions could help them ?

You forgot one..

We screwed up in 91 and did not finish the job.
Now we must pay for that mistake..

 

[jnuts]

Reasons thus far for war:

From the UN resolution:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

full text at http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

 

[Ffactor]

Re: Re: Those of you who are Pro War

From the UN resolution:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

full text at http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

Exactly! That was a UN resolution. The UN is as of now opposed to war. So why is the US trying to act on a UN resolution unilaterally.

 

[FreakMonster]

I look at the situation in Oregon with kids being let out of
School a month early due to state budget shortages..

How much of the Mil Billions could help them ?

You forgot one..

We screwed up in 91 and did not finish the job.
Now we must pay for that mistake..

We had hoped that the war in 91 would lead to the removal of Saddam Hussein and the American occupation of Iraq. However, despite the urgings of then-Defense Secretary Richard Cheney and Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the full conquest of Iraq was never accomplished because of the opposition of General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, the field commander. Also, the United States had a UN mandate only to liberate Kuwait, not to remove Saddam. To attempt the latter would have caused the U.S.-led coalition to fall apart. America's coalition partners in the region, especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia, feared that the elimination of Saddam's government would cause Iraq to fragment into warring ethnic and religious groups. That could have involved a Kurdish rebellion in Iraq that would have spread to Turkey's own restive Kurdish population. Furthermore, Iraq's Shiites might have fallen under the influence of Iran, increasing the threat of Islamic radicalism in the region.

 

[LongBall]

George Bush thinks it's a good idea

I elected him,
I will stand by him.
He knows more than I am privy to.
He is the commander in chief of my country.

We will act in the best interest of our country and its citizens. We did not finish the job in 91' and it is now starting to rear its ugly head again. Should we ignore it and think it will magically go away? When anybody here finds that perfect world, let me know where it is.



LongBall

 

[bullett]

Yea...lets stand by and allow Saddam to keep putting the inspectors off, and keep delaying...

Did you not see Colon Powell, and the evidence we have? Its a game for Saddam...

Normally, I might side with you, and wait until the UN found the concrete answers to this, but THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH!

I don't believe we can sit and watch another country develop nuclear capability, especially a country as pro-terrorism as Iraq. Once the deed is done, we will be sayin...WOW we should have stopped that!

The stakes are too high.....

We have to disarm Iraq.

 

[jnuts]

Re: Re: Re: Those of you who are Pro War

Exactly! That was a UN resolution. The UN is as of now opposed to war. So why is the US trying to act on a UN resolution unilaterally.

Because the UN is becoming a non-player.


Selected quips from
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/14/iraq.bush.berlusconi/


"The United Nations deserves another chance to prove its relevance," the president said. "We're entering a new era. Wars of the future are not going to be fought like wars of the past."

"This is a chance, he said, "for the United Nations to show some backbone and resolve as we confront the challenges of the 21st century."

Bush said Hussein has broken every pledge he made to the United Nations since Iraq was defeated after invading Kuwait in 1990.

"Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times -- not once, not twice, 16 times he has defied the U.N.," Bush said. "The U.N. has told him after the Gulf War, what to do, what the world expected and 16 times he's defied it."

Bush said that "enough is enough."

The United Nations must take the actions necessary as a peacekeeping organization to retain its status, the president said.

 

[the nature boy]

so wait, are we acitng on behalf of the un resolution or are we acting on behalf of ourselves? You mentioned UN resolution 13, then you said the UN is becoming a non-player. Which one is it?

 

[Ffactor]

Yea...lets stand by and allow Saddam to keep putting the inspectors off, and keep delaying...

Did you not see Colon Powell, and the evidence we have? Its a game for Saddam...

Normally, I might side with you, and wait until the UN found the concrete answers to this, but THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH!

I don't believe we can sit and watch another country develop nuclear capability, especially a country as pro-terrorism as Iraq. Once the deed is done, we will be sayin...WOW we should have stopped that!

The stakes are too high.....

We have to disarm Iraq.

I definitely see your point but my question is thus far is there even slightest evidence that he has nuclear capability and may be able to deliver a payload to the US.