Do you think all the effort thats gone into war against Iraq are really worth it? I dont think so. Becuase many civilians, and troops have lost there lives through suicide bombings, and surprise attacks. I think the real victims are the civilans (i know i sound emo).
No. It's not. Of course, I'm completely and totally anti-war, I just don't understand it, and it almost pains me to watch the news now and see that "98 people have died today in a suicide bombing" or "24 U.S. soldiers were killed in an ambush". Things like that. And no, you don't sound emo.
I highly doubt that this war on Iraq has done much but make our gas prices go up, and lose lives that are invaluable. No, it's not worth it, we'll never win. Ever.unless we get Osama, we wont
You've got me ranting now. =/ Definitely not. I've been against this war ever since it began, and still believe that this war is wrong. It's a waste of lives, resources, money, and time. Just one of my arguments (I have many more): We're in Iraq-- but no one really seems to know why. ^There are more quotes, but these are enough to illustrate my point. I'm against the war, but I do support the troops. We're stuck in this stupid war.. and we can't pull out at the moment. Might as well get it done.. and leave the country without all the chaos and craziness. I'm just hoping that the war will end soon.
War is never worth it. The only thing war can bring is violence, destruction and death. You cannot get peace by using war. You can only get peace by using peace.
Well there's a webpage that I found with those quotes and more.. I can't find the page anymore though. I took those from that page and posted them on my xanga after I watched the president's speech last month. (Since I heard him say something about our mission being that we have to kill the terrorists) I've posted the source for each of the quotes. They're from the White House website
Not that I'm all for the war or vise-versa, but these soldiers that go out there sign up for this stuff and that's there job......
Yes. What would you chose? Let a maniac build nuclear weapons and bomb them on his own country, or get that maniac and know that people will die? Those soldiers knew what they were doing and they knew they could've died.
and i thought i was going to be the only person who thought yes... the war against Iraq was well worth it up to a point. when Sadam was gone they should have gradualy left the country to fend for itself rather than staying there. and they're still there. now it isn't worth it, but it did used to be worth it.
War is only worth it if its for a good cause,not a leaders private cause. Otherwise no,war is wrong and the killing of survilians is just fucked up.
and i thought i was going to be the only person who thought yes... the war against Iraq was well worth it up to a point. when Sadam was gone they should have gradualy left the country to fend for itself rather than staying there. and they're still there. now it isn't worth it, but it did used to be worth it. [/b][/quote] Yes, it's worth it. And I agree with you some what but I highly disagree with your comment, ''let them fend for themselves.'' To me, that would be an outrageous thing to do. Turn their country upside down for OUR cause then just desert them and let them fend for themselves? Insanity. However, if we were to pull out gradually while people were sucide bombing, terrorists and other groups would have taken it as a sign of weakness. And people who sign up for the army know that when they sign up, when war time comes up they will be asked to go. And you know what, if you don't want to go you can serve time in jail. I believe that if you object to a war and they ask you to serve some time and you do not want to, you can go to jail. And peace does NOT bring peace. If you look throughout history, there are SO many times where peace has just been seen as a sign of weakness.
NK is more of a threat of this than Iraq. Besides, we never found any WMDs, like Mr. Bush said we would. Well that's what I used to think.. we should have left Iraq after Saddam was kicked out. You can't just leave a chaotic country to "fend for themselves". The country would have fallen due to instability. It would have been better if we hadn't started this stupid war in the first place.
NK is more of a threat of this than Iraq. Besides, we never found any WMDs, like Mr. Bush said we would. Well that's what I used to think.. we should have left Iraq after Saddam was kicked out. You can't just leave a chaotic country to "fend for themselves". The country would have fallen due to instability. It would have been better if we hadn't started this stupid war in the first place. [/b][/quote] That's why i said gradualy. you're right. if they had just... dissapeared from Iraq it would have been chaos. but they don't need to be there this long. it's just causing more deaths. American and Iraqi.
Honestly, I don't think you can say "it was worth it" or "it wasn't worth it" unless you can some how magically look into the future. The outcome of a war is almost never known within a few years after it's over (and the war in Iraq isn't over, really, even though it technically is) -- just look at World War I and World War II. You couldn't say "it was worth it" or "it wasn't worth it" a few years after the war. On the plus side, you could say that we got rid of Saddam and his sons, who would have continued his reign of terror (some say his sons were more ruthless than he was, and I can't say I disagree). We liberated a lot of people, and I can tell you from relatives in the military and people I know that there are, in fact, a good number of people who do appreciate that in Iraq. We also are currently restoring the country, although that is going to take a long, long time. On the negative sides, there were a lot of human lives lost, just like any war. Some people don't want America to run the country right now (which I find absolutely asinine, if you want my honest opinion... we don't want another Afghanistan, which is what everyone seems to forget -- we liberated Afghanistan from the Soviets only to leave it too quickly and let the Taliban take over... we don't need to make the same mistake with Iraq), which is understandable, too. I don't think gas prices have done anything in relation to the war, and if they have it's been so marginal it's not even noticable. The changing gas prices are due to a current shortage in gas and OPEC realizing that they can hike up the prices. OPEC pretty much regulates the entire thing -- they have more say in oil prices across the world than anyone, and Iraq won't change a single thing about that. I mean, I understand how everyone can say "war is never worth it" and all that stuff, but even if it's not always "worth" it or whatever you want to say, sometimes it is required. How am I going to back that up? Just look at history. Do you think war wasn't required when Hitler tried to make his empire?
NK is more of a threat of this than Iraq. Besides, we never found any WMDs, like Mr. Bush said we would. Well that's what I used to think.. we should have left Iraq after Saddam was kicked out. You can't just leave a chaotic country to "fend for themselves". The country would have fallen due to instability. It would have been better if we hadn't started this stupid war in the first place. [/b][/quote] This whole North Korea thing came up long after we invaded Iraq.
NK is more of a threat of this than Iraq. Besides, we never found any WMDs, like Mr. Bush said we would. [/b][/quote] Yeah, but who knew at that time? If I was president I would invade Iraq aswell, because you just cant take the risk that Saddam just gets in a happy mood and throws nuclear bombs all over the place like its candy.
Yeah, but who knew at that time? If I was president I would invade Iraq aswell, because you just cant take the risk that Saddam just gets in a happy mood and throws nuclear bombs all over the place like its candy. [/b][/quote] 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.