It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pro-War Vs. Anti-War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I've come here to voice my furious reaction to those who are anti-war. You stand there and say that there are more peaceful ways and that our President is nothing but a retarded Texan with clout, and power to throw around, and now your saying that Bill Clinton would of never gotten us into this mess. But the truth is that President Bush has probably saved our country as we know it. If we let Saddam keep going on as he was he would of been a terrible threat and would probably of launched a mass biological attack on us Americans. Look at it this way would you rather take the time, the money, and yes the lives to remove a regime that are a threat to civilization now or would you rather wait when he has the power to wipe out our way of living as we know it. The resolutions were passed and he broke everyone of them. We gave him more than enough opprotunity's to go a peaceful route. Now I personally don't believe in war, I would rather not fight than fight, but I know that there are times when one must do what is right for the betterment of society. And this is one of those times. You all just complain to complain and have no real theory to why we shouldn't attack the person that is a threat to the way of life. You have no logical way of thinking about this and see only the "bunny huger view". Take a look at all of the details and stop complaining because your insignificant lifes are not interesting enough. We have enough problems fighting in the Middle East and we don't need your sniveling here.




posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I agree with alot of your points as to why this war is necessary and justified, but I would disagree that people that are anti-war have "no logical way of thinking" and highly disagree that their "insignificant lives are not interesting enough", they are just as significant as yours and mine. You are giving some of us pro-war people a bad name by calling opposing views "snivel".



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 02:14 PM
link   
let me state that I am for the war...just not for the reasons being cited by Bush (who is a pretty dim bulb...that isn't exactly up for debate). That said, there are plenty of logical reasons for people to be against this war, and many of them have argued these reasons very well imho...

Reasons for the war:
1. Saddam has ignored de-facto terms of surrender for 12 years.
2. To establish a USA-friendly nation in the region.
3. Many goals tied to number 2, such as a strengthening of the dollar, by installation of a government that will use the dollar instead of the euro for their UN reserve holdings, to secure friendlier oil contracts, etc.
4. To liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime.
5. To stabilize the region by removing one who has attacked his neighbors.
6. To eliminate a key sponsor of terrorism.
7. To eliminate a large WOMD stockpile in the region.

Bush seems to stick with only reasons 6 and 7, which so far, he has failed to provide enough evidence to garner worldwide support...which is, imho, a mistake. Because of the other reasons as well, I am for this war, but I disagree with the way it's being handled...

Now, the reasons against the war:
1. It was NOT initiated by the UN, but it is the UN is who Saddam made the agreements with.
2. It is technically against International Law. While a recent resolution IMPLIES a military response, it doesn't exactly make it legal.
3. Many believe the inspections were finally working (I disagree, but it is a view held by many).
4. Bush should've tried harder to get UN approval, by showing the proof he supposedly has (this is a point I agree with).
5. Going through with it will damage the UN, as a member struck out on their own, against the UN wishes...

Many other points have been raised, both for and against the war, that are equally valid, but these are some of the main ones that spring to mind. I guess you really just have to look at all of them, and decide which reasons are more important to you, to see where you stand. Don't follow your leaders blindly, and make up your own mind about it...


FYI: this thread will likely be moved to the War forum...


[Edited on 24-3-2003 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hiashi
I've come here to voice my furious reaction to those who are anti-war. You stand there and say that there are more peaceful ways and that our President is nothing but a retarded Texan with clout, and power to throw around, and now your saying that Bill Clinton would of never gotten us into this mess. But the truth is that President Bush has probably saved our country as we know it. If we let Saddam keep going on as he was he would of been a terrible threat and would probably of launched a mass biological attack on us Americans. Look at it this way would you rather take the time, the money, and yes the lives to remove a regime that are a threat to civilization now or would you rather wait when he has the power to wipe out our way of living as we know it. The resolutions were passed and he broke everyone of them. We gave him more than enough opprotunity's to go a peaceful route. Now I personally don't believe in war, I would rather not fight than fight, but I know that there are times when one must do what is right for the betterment of society. And this is one of those times. You all just complain to complain and have no real theory to why we shouldn't attack the person that is a threat to the way of life. You have no logical way of thinking about this and see only the "bunny huger view". Take a look at all of the details and stop complaining because your insignificant lifes are not interesting enough. We have enough problems fighting in the Middle East and we don't need your sniveling here.


I agree with you on all but one thing:
How in th' heck is Saddam s'posed to use bio/chem/nukes against us? Does he have a plane? Does he have the rocket capabilities on these missiles to get us? NO. Therefore, that theory goes out the window.

Otherwise, however, you are correct on most terms. Bush has done this country's people a half-decent deed by attempting to rid the world of Saddam. He has opposed the UN(this stupid League of Nations is outdated and weak, but...), and he has oppressed his people for too long. Also, his generals have been killing our troops when they are defenseless. I say we finish this now. As in, with as many WMD as we have. I'm past the point of caring how many people die.

This war is good for the world, IMHO. May the Iraqi regime suffer our might.

Signing out, HLW



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 03:43 PM
link   
"Does he have a plane?"

Did Bin-Laden have his own plane ?


... just a thought...



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeLLaTrIx
Iraq air force is weak but still a danger.

He has around 100 or so remaining combat
aircraft under Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's control



OK, lemme change what I said.


Originally posted by HLW

Does he have capable planes?




Signing off,
HLW



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Whats up HLW, haven't seen you in a couple of days! Here is the comparison of Air Force aircraft. The link I provided is a good "tale of the tape" between US and Iraq.

Air Force ó Fighter/Attack Aircraft:
Iraq: 35
U.S.: 1,631

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 07:42 PM
link   
if they were incredibly well trained then it'd be RAF vs, luftwaffe. but since that's not the case, they're screwed. war is inevitable, i am neither for nor against it.



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 07:54 PM
link   
It can never be RAF vs. Luftwaffe.

The RAF wasn't as much better trained, as better gunned.

Hitler asked Herman G–ring "What do you need to win the battle of Britain", and G–ring replied. "Give me Spitfires."

Without the Spitfire and later the Mustang, the RAF would have been blown to bits. Regardless of their skill and bravery.



posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5POF

Hitler asked Herman G–ring "What do you need to win the battle of Britain", and G–ring replied. "Give me Spitfires."



Not exactely. It's a German pilot who told this to Goering. Goering wasn't crazy enough to tell such a thing to Hitler.



new topics




 
0

log in

join