Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should we really go to war

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Forgive me if i'm wrong but i really think there is no reason why we should go to war in the first place because i think it is just a family feud between the bushes. i mean if that man really tried to kill George Bush (the father) then he should take care of it i mean there is no reason why you should go and put a whole country into war because of one's man tragedy. Alot of people get killed everyday but u don't see the US getting all hyped about it and going to war because of it. I mean (we already solved this crisis) but don't u think that before going into war we chould solve the problem that we have with a maniac killing everyone in DC OUR COUNTRY'S CAPITAL!!!! and plus when u go 2 war don't u want the support of the UN behind u. I really think that this is a dumb idea and by doing this we would only kill innocent people living in Iraq who are forced to follow the regiment and really don't have anything to do with it at all. and why id the united states the only country that can produce nuclear weapons! do they have something more special, we make them but u don't see any one fighting we us telling us we can't do that. and plus u already have a nuclear bomb that can blow up the planet 20 times why need more. u already have some just laying around LEAKING. if u disagree please reply i like 2 find out other's people opinions.




posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Wow!! You sure opened the gates and let it all out, didn't you!


The possible war with Iraq isn't about any assisination attempt again't '41, although I'm sure that made it personal for '43. It is about Hussein, a blood-thirsty despot that has proven to have no regard for human life, who has murdered hundreds of thousand of his own people and has attacked neighbors without provocation before, is stridently pursuing nuclear weapons capability. On top of that, he supports terrorism with training, finance and other logistical needs.

America does not have enough bombs to blow up the world 20 times over - that is a myth created by those who aren't familiar with nuclear weapons. We have them, and so do a handful of other Western nations, and like the other Western nations, we are not about the business to use them in an offensive manner. We are nations of laws, not atyrannical rule of madmen such as Hussein. There is no reason to believe that Hussein would not use a nuclear weapon just as easily as he uses chemical weapons, and there is no reason to believe he would not place a small nuclear device in the hands of terrorists willing to use it, provided he had the weapon.

It will be extremely expensive to wage war against Hussein, but unless he fully complies with the inspection and disarmament demands of the United Nations (and, we aren't alone in this demand and probably won't be alone if it becomes necessary to go to war) it would probably cost more than the nation would want to pay not to depose him.

You raise an interesting point, and one that I see from a different angle. Deposing Hussein would liberate the Iraqi people, not destroy them. To continue to allow them to suffer his rule is hateful.

Also, the U.N. is not responsible for the security of the united states of America - the U.S. is. More than just cowardly, to only go to war against the madman in specific and terrorism in general if the U.N. backs us would be traitorous to the nation.



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 05:08 PM
link   
thanks 4 replying
but do u really think that let's just say that if we bomb iraq that some innocent people won't get hurt?
also when i said "blow up the earth 20 times" was just an expression that i used but really why built more when u have enough to cause a WWIII and still have the bombs sitting down leaking
which can cause serious damage.
ok i think that u know that the USdoes bully other countries and if they see that one of them has a necluear weapon they are all over them and try to take it from them. but they no one says anything when they do it.
and when u go in a war u WANT the UN behingd u
and the US is just breaking the UN rules right now (don't quote me on that not really sure) anyways
i can learn alot from u thanks
u sound like a very intelligent person



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 05:12 PM
link   
*blush* Aw, you're sweet. Thanks for the compliment.

Don't worry about the nuclear weapons leaking- they don't. They are stored, secured and maintained by highly trained specialists. I can't go into details, but I promise that they are not doing any damage to the environment or the population.



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 05:17 PM
link   
*blush* Aw, you're sweet. Thanks for the compliment.

Don't worry about the nuclear weapons leaking- they don't. They are stored, secured and maintained by highly trained specialists. I can't go into details, but I promise that they are not doing any damage to the environment or the population.
You are correct in that civilians always get hurt and killed during wartime, but with today's technology civilian casualties are brought down to a minimum that just a few decades ago would have been unheard of. As they live now under Hussein's rule for some to die so that others might have a chance to live a decent life is not as bad as to allow him to continue his bloody reign and yet more die under his oppression.
Who knows? Maybe he'll opt for disarmament and he'll be a less of a threat, and maybe he'll abide by all the resolutions and the sanctions can safely be lifted and all will be better all the way around.



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 05:19 PM
link   
forgive me if im wrong but we have nucler weapons sitting around since WWII since Agust 6, 1945 when the US bombed Hiroshima. but im preety sure that they had it back then. but i think that after a period of time they do start to leak.



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 10:20 PM
link   
First off, no. Nuclear weapons do not "leak".
Thats because there is nothing within them that COULD leak. They're 99.5% solid state. With that last .5% being harmless chemicals such as Tritium which is found in every sample of sea water.

Never-the-less, I DO agree with you. This impending war is rather needless. We (the US) have only one thing on our mind when we start stirring the sh!t in that part of the world: OIL!! So just forget all that human rights bullsh!t that whitehouse public relations has been churning out. Why would the US care any more about human rights in Iraq than human rights in Rwanda/Burundi which was conveniently ignored until the UN stepped in?!? I'll tell you why, 'cause there's no oil in eastern/central africa!!!

Sounds cruel (and it probably is) but thats the way the world works



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I am sry to say I disagree blue. I think we should go to war. Saddam is a terrorist.

He has weapons of mass-destruction.

He killed innocent people.

He could be the third anti-chirst.

He is an unholy demon. We should kill him now.



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 08:03 PM
link   
"Judge not & ye shall not be judged"...Or somthing like that.

Oooops!

"An evil demon", huh? I wonder what Sodamn Insane thinks of you?



[Edited on 14-11-2002 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I used to agree with bluegrl because we were not provoked, and the last thing we need is to be "bullying" smaller nations.

HOWEVER! The UN passed its sanction, that Iraq is to be searched for weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq.....HAS TO THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!?????

That shows they have something to hide, it could just be the parliment TRYING to get Saddam the boot. But I believe that Iraq is desperately scrounging together what it can for a bomb, like the nazi rats in 1945.

The only difference, is Iraq does not have moral men like Wolfstein (whatever his name was) who sabbotage the work effort. (Wolfstien* was a scientest on the Nazi nuclear program, who was purposely making false calculations to slow down the research progress of the nuclear weapons)

Saddam is not a moral man...whether he is driven by fear, or by more sinister means, he can not be trusted with even biological weapons, and they already have those, let alone nuclear.

Iraq won't even sign any of the Weapons of Mass destruction treaties. Iraq was not destroyed the first time only because Turkey didn't want a "Kurdhistan". Now the world is seriously in danger. Biologics is nothing to..."sneeze"...at
And a nuke is even worse.

Granted we should always be the good guys, but now is the time, we have our justification...so come down from the clouds, and realize what Iraq can do.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Just because they have to think about does not HAVE to mean that they have something to hide. They might be stalling because they don't like being bullied, and they want to save face in front of the world. No country likes to have their sovereignty infringed upon and get told what to do by other countries. Iraq just wants to show the world that they are not puppets. That's the nature of diplomacy my friend.

As for Iraq not signing WMD treaties...so what? Neither has the US. And the treaties that the US has signed (such as the ABL treaty), they are now backing out of. Treaties don't mean a damn thing!! Hitler signed a treaty with Russia just months before invading! Just because two heads of state sign some useless piece of paper, it doesn't mean that it's now set in stone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some sort of Iraqi proponent, but I like to keep the facts straight.



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:11 PM
link   
psypher that is exactly what i'm trying to say! we don't really know and plus you wouldn't like it if people went to your house and searched it
I don't suport Saddam i'm just saying
the US is just in this for the oil and personal bushes issues
and that's all



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:20 PM
link   
So wht's say we all start to distrubute the American Petition (That is, if you live in the US) & jump up to the "Bush Leagues"?



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:22 PM
link   
ha ha



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluegrl89
psypher that is exactly what i'm trying to say! we don't really know and plus you wouldn't like it if people went to your house and searched it
I don't suport Saddam i'm just saying
the US is just in this for the oil and personal bushes issues
and that's all


So, the obvious and straightforward issue of security from more terror and danger from a lunatic with WMD's has nothing to do with it, huh?

I swear, you guys will run past a mountain to look at a dirtclod!



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Psypher you obviously know little of history AND politics. Soviet Union and Nazis signed their "military" pact with the understood knowledge that they'd be at war with eachother in a few months, it is different than when a country is expected to follow the doccuments.

You want proof that soviets and nazis knew that pact was temporary? Soviets spent that entire 6 months or so moving all factories to siberia, this is what saved them in ww2 they'd have lost otherwise.

Now as for Saddam, he sealed his death warrant with this delay, any plea that might have worked will now fail, no nation trusts him now. To the world he is worth as much as his sand, and even if he agrees to the UN inspection, the UN is not going to rest now until they find the evidence they seek, Saddam would have been better off if he jumped at it and said "YES COME OVER TOMORROW!" but no, he is hiding stuff.

This is not Cops, there is no idiocy in diplomacy that is discounted with a few slaps on the back saying "Sorry chap, we thought you were going to nuke us."

Whether you think it is right or wrong, Iraq is now the enemy of anyone who wants a free world, and if we don't blow the hell out of them, someone will eventually. Especially with a loose cannon like Israel, stirring the pot.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 03:00 PM
link   
On the contrary, it is YOU freemason that knows nothing of politics and diplomacy....or of history for that matter. The soviets were definitely NOT aware of an impending soviet invasion, and I challenge you to provide even one shred of evidence that proves otherwise. And don't give me that bull about moving factories. Even if that did occur, it proves nothing. Stalin might have done that due to logistics reasons, or he might even have just wanted to take some safety precautions. Hitler of course knew that he was gonna invade Russia, but had Stalin known that fact, there would have been no way in hell that German forces could have penetrated Russian territory until just a few miles away from Moscow!!!

Please don't come in here making up facts and talking sh!t when you really don't have a clue what you're on about. Seriously, how can you come into a conversation and try and convince a group of reasonably intelligent people that 2 nations would sign a treaty with full knowledge that they're both going to break it??? PLEASE don't insult our intelligence like that.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Well looks like Dubya's gotta pass on to plan B because iraq accepted the return of inspectors...



posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 01:06 PM
link   
hmph. Plan B?? Plan B is to wait a little while and then insist that Iraq is not complying with the treaty. Even if Hussein has agreed, Bush has tasted blood and now he's on the war-path. The US is geared up for war, and sooner or later thats what we're gonna get. It's only just a matter of time.



posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 05:27 PM
link   
We have been waiting to long. Saddam must go. He has comitted genocide, and other crimes. We cannot write up another decree for Iraq to reject.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join