Do you think War is worth it?

So, if the CIA operative you sent to Niger to find out if Iraq bought materials to make purified uranium came back telling you the accusations were false, you would have invaded?

Right...so we go and kill a total of 25000 civilians, directly and indirectly, and say that at least now we know..


This is too serious, you can't do something like this unless you have the right info, and are rid of reasonable doubt. If you don't, you end up doing more harm than good. And all for what?


And what reason would Saddam have to nuke his own country? Without people and land to rule over, HE DOESN'T RULE ANYTHING. [/b][/quote]
I guess you don't remember the whole Kuwait incident, do you? I think it's safe to say that Saddam had the capabilities of doing the same thing again.

Tell me -- when he kicked the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq, what kind of message do you think that sent to the rest of the world? It sure doesn't seem like a good faith gesture to me, and I think most of the world thought he had something up his sleeve.

Sarin gas, mustard gas, and numerous other biological weapons have been found since Saddam was ousted from power. More over, burried airforces have been found that contained chemical bombs, too. I guess that means nothing to you.

Your "reasonable doubt" is only in the United States court system when trying someone. If you want to draw parallels, how about to search and seizure -- where the belief that someone has something of interest is only required?

Saddam would have no reason to nuke his own country... but he did slaughter thousands of his own people.

 

My standpoint:

I don't agree with Bush that the war is helping for our defense. I agreed with him going into Iraq to find WMDs. No we did not find any...but stop complaining because attempting to find the WMDs and not finding them is much better than not attempting to find them and then being attacked (thousands of more deaths in our homeland) I also agree with him staying in Iraq for the purpose of rebuilding Iraq.
Deaths of troops and of insurgents? It comes with the territory of war. Of course there will be deaths when there is war but you can't pull out of Iraq just because there are many people dying.

Do I wish we haven't started in the first place now that I know what is happening...yes.

Would I pull out right now and would you find me complaining...no.

By the way...maybe Saddam isn't in power...but terrorists still have the power to nuke us to hell (remember London?)

 

2003's Iraq and the Iraq of the Gulf War were two completely different nations, I'd say the former was much more crippled by military standards.

And who sold them into his possession?

The United States, through its massive arms trade, has supplied and is supplying 16 of the 18 nations that Bush had said "harbor terrorists." Iraq included.

Yes, you are right, he did slaughter his own people, which is a gross violation of human rights, and which I'm oppossed to, but the statement made implied nuking his own country.

 

I think that it was so stupid of the UN to allow Bush and other leaders to do this to Iraq. I admit Iraq was in need of rescueing cos of Saddam Hussien. But now they are really pushing their luck.
Did anyone see the interview of the Australian victimised at the London attacks?
Mr Howard (our PM) said that its not because of our troops being over there but its a heinous and perverted way of depressing us and getting our troops out of there.
(btw im australian)
I think its really because the more allied troops over there, the more the attacks on civiallians are going to happen, they are going to be more casualities and more deaths.
I think in my own opinion, that (as many people in this thread has pointed out) its really pointless and a waste of life.
(lol this is random but its related....check "Count Bodies Like Sheep To The Rythm Of The War Drums by A Perfect Circle...see the film clip its about Bush and the Iraqi war).

 

It well "killed" Saddam Hoesein (or how is his name don't care)
but i still think it's useless
look at London they still make themselves explode (wackos )

 

That's because, no matter what...There will ALWAYS be terrorism. There will always be someone who disagrees with a certain countries beliefs or way of life that they won't like. And London was not nuked at all. They used some type of explosive, it definitely wasn't nuclear. Terrorists could never nuke the U.S. to hell. Yes, they could cause A LOT of damage. But it would take a lot to take the U.S. down.

 

That's because, no matter what...There will ALWAYS be terrorism. There will always be someone who disagrees with a certain countries beliefs or way of life that they won't like. And London was not nuked at all. They used some type of explosive, it definitely wasn't nuclear. Terrorists could never nuke the U.S. to hell. Yes, they could cause A LOT of damage. But it would take a lot to take the U.S. down. [/b][/quote]
alright...they didn't nuke london, but a gigantic nuclear war is possible.

 

That's because, no matter what...There will ALWAYS be terrorism. There will always be someone who disagrees with a certain countries beliefs or way of life that they won't like. And London was not nuked at all. They used some type of explosive, it definitely wasn't nuclear. Terrorists could never nuke the U.S. to hell. Yes, they could cause A LOT of damage. But it would take a lot to take the U.S. down. [/b][/quote]
Where do you make the connection between "disagree" and "terrorist attack"? I don't think they're as closely related as you point them out to be. I'm disagreeing with you now, but I'm not bombing your residence, am I?