Iraq: Yay or Nay

[Collegeboy]

I am against it for it won't accomplish anything but create more terrorism, more hatred, and strentghen the hands of the terrorist. It will get rid of Saddam, but that won't accomplish anything

[irbodden]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am against it for it won't accomplish anything but create more terrorism, more hatred, and strentghen the hands of the terrorist. It will get rid of Saddam, but that won't accomplish anything

Says who? Many argue our weakness and NOT acting in past situations has caused these attacks as we are an easy target.

Getting rid of a safe haven for Al-Qaeda WILL accomplish something.

[Collegeboy]

I wish not to argue this again. I state opinions on it, and that is that.

[boomerfoxtrot]

that was the best thing to do collegeboy...

no one says that you have to like the war or want the war... but what I find sad is the people who say "I don't support the troops" ... other words.. "I don't give a rat's butt about the guys and gals fighting and dying so I can say what I want, and live in freedom" .... that is what gets me...

but, I do believe that we need to get Iraq some American Smack Down, and we need to do it fast.

but.... what people don't see, is that Our Leader is going to put AMERICAN TROOPS at risk so he can SAVE Iraq Civs..

and yet, people still call him war happy... up to me, I'ld show them what kind of missles we have and level Iraq... but there is a reason I'm not the Leader of this GREAT Counrty.

[RoadDawg]

Personally I'm against the war. Why, I see no reason to go in yet. I would like solid proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Sure a couple have been found w/o warheads but to me that means nothing. We don't know for a fact the Saddam is creating a safe house for terroism. To me that is just another excuse to go in. All the afghanistan campaign did was spread out the Al Quada (sp). Now they are more dangerous then ever before. Also I have become more aware of how much other countries dislike us for our involvement in other countries affairs. I personally feel more threatened by N.Korea then by Iraq. Knowing they have the missle capabilities to hit California makes me more stir crazy then Iraq. Just my 2 cents.

[devildog]

Originally posted by RoadDawg
Knowing they have the missle capabilities to hit California makes me more stir crazy then Iraq. Just my 2 cents.

do you really think they are the only ones? do you really think iraq has no capabilities to mess up this country if they so choose?

[AcemanPB]

Originally posted by devildog


do you really think they are the only ones? do you really think iraq has no capabilities to mess up this country if they so choose?

IMO I do not precive Iraq as a threat at all. It's North Korea we should be worried about, unlike Iraq we KNOW they have the capabilities to use weapons of mass destruction on our country, and we KNOW that they are not afraid to use them (why else would they make them?).

While I respect the people in our nation's military and what they do for our country, I do not see how going to war with Iraq will fix any problem, really I just seeing it creating whole new ones.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by boomerfoxtrot
but.... what people don't see, is that Our Leader is going to put AMERICAN TROOPS at risk so he can SAVE Iraq Civs..

Hey saving people is great. But..um...why did we wait like 20+ years to do it? Maybe we were too busy giving Saddam money to notice his people needed saving.

My point is there are many arguable reasons why we are going into Iraq...but "saving Iraqi civilians" is not one of them.


JDub

[DaveDog]

It's like this: We go to war and everyone is pissed. We don't and we'll be regretting missing a second chance to take out Saddam. We'll really be regretting it when he's passing out nuclear & biological weapons to terrorists to take aim at the rest of the world. I'm one for being proactive.

[boomerfoxtrot]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious


Hey saving people is great. But..um...why did we wait like 20+ years to do it? Maybe we were too busy giving Saddam money to notice his people needed saving.

My point is there are many arguable reasons why we are going into Iraq...but "saving Iraqi civilians" is not one of them.


JDub

We are not going into Iraq to save civilians... we are going into Iraq to disarm them. BUT we are not going to just level the place... we are sending ground forces in to do the job. So we don't kill to many civilians.

And we have SOLID proof that Iraq has weapons, and has been making the weapons.
Just open your eyes and read....

The US has photos of Iraq moving weapons around before inspectors get there. We have recorded phone calls with them saying "The inspectors are coming, clean and clear the place" That's proof that they are in breech....
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO PROVE THEY HAVE WEAPONS! it's their job to PROVE they DON'T have weapons. Which they clearly have not done. The inspectors have found weapons, but still.... the UN is pointless.... they set up treaties to what..... not inforce them. The longer we wait to do the world's dirty work in Iraq the higher chance of our troops and allies getting nuked, chemed, or worse... a bio attack.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by darklord
I think that at this point, the war is inevitable. We didn't send over the military just so they could bask in the Middle East's heat!

Might turn into a 2-front war with North Korea involved...

Just a quick point, not to start a debate.

Just because war is inevitable, doesn't mean it is right.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Just a quick point, not to start a debate.

Just because war is inevitable, doesn't mean it is right.

Just a quick point, because there is a ruthless dictator that is trying to devolp nukes, has chemical WMD, killed his own people and broken countless UN resoultions, DOES make it right.

[Archangel Damien]

its better to act now and get the MD weapons out of there then to wait and have to react after he kills inocent people

[AcemanPB]

Originally posted by irbodden


Just a quick point, because there is a ruthless dictator that is trying to devolp nukes, has chemical WMD, killed his own people and broken countless UN resoultions, DOES make it right.

Saddam can't be that bad if the majority of his people support him, If he was as bad as we make him out to be someone would have overthrown him by now...

Trying to devolp nukes and has chemical weapons? Well who was the ONLY country to use a nuke on another country? We are getting on Saddam for having nukes when we have bunkers full of 'em.

Chemical and biological weapons? We used plenty of those in Vietnam, pretty nasty stuff...the chemical and biological weapons we have are alot more gruesome than some smallpox or anthrax...

Yes Saddam killed his own people... he killed his "own" people during a time of civil war. If I remeber right the US's civil war between the North and the South was one of the nations bloodiest wars... yet no one attacked our country for it.

The only problem with having the worlds strongest military is that sooner or later your going to want to use it.... and most of the time it's sooner

Alright before I get flammed beyone belief I'm just playing devil's advocate and tryting to start a little friendly debate.

[LittleKrems]

im not very involved in whats happening, but you bring up a lot of good points. im not taking sides, cuz 1) nobody cares and 2) it wont change anything