Post by TedRay80 on Mar 28, 2003 16:26:17 GMT -5
Ah, heck, I'll chime in again. FBB has two main points:
1) The US has not been provoked.
Ok, well I guess you could say that. First of all, I disagree with the premise. Saddam Hussein has been pretty well linked with terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. On September 11th, I would say our nation was provoked, and the promise was a war on terror. Our nation has now been at war against terror for a year and a half. Iraq and all others supporting terror provoked us then. We have been further provoked by the evidence I'll discuss in a second.
So let's just go ahead and assume we have not been provoked. The thought, then, is that we should wait until provocation to retaliate. Would the entire city of St. Louis getting hit with anthrax count as provocation? What about small pox breaking out in New York City? Maybe the nerve gas released in Iraq that killed 5,000 of their own could be released in the middle of Los Angeles. I would call all of that provocation. I would also prefer being pro-active to reactive. Weren't people upset a year and a half ago because the government had heard rumors of a possible attack and did not act to prevent it? If so, then why should those people be upset if our nation suspected that someone may have the means to use chemical warfare on us or anyone, and the government intervened?
That can lead us into point two...
2) The US does not have enough evidence to go to war with Iraq
I'd have to vehemently disagree with this. We have evidence that Iraq has already used weapons that they claimed not to have and were not allowed to have. Iraqi soldiers have been tested and found resistant to small pox. Some have had Cipro on them. I'm sure Saddam isn't just giving that out to his soldiers in case the US unleashes anthrax on them. Iraq has not allowed inspectors to enter certain areas and buildings or has made the inspectors wait. All of this evidence seems pretty strong to me. Are we positive they have some of this stuff? I guess not. I sure am not willing to wait until an outbreak in the US to find out, though. I am more disconcerted by the fact that we don't have evidence of Iraq NOT having the means to use chemical warfare.
By the way, these are UN resolutions that have been broken, not US resolutions. Why is the US enforcing them, then? Because most UN nations have no spine or are corrupt themselves! France has SUPPLIED Iraq with weapons! The investigators for the UN have gone repeatedly to Iraq and just accepted not being allowed into some areas. There is no indication that Iraq is safe. Saddam Hussein is in power, and there is much indication that he is dangerous.
I think Spam's quotes have sufficiently answered the idea that war should never be supported.
- The US has not been provoked
- The US does not have enough evidence to go to war with Iraq
1) The US has not been provoked.
Ok, well I guess you could say that. First of all, I disagree with the premise. Saddam Hussein has been pretty well linked with terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. On September 11th, I would say our nation was provoked, and the promise was a war on terror. Our nation has now been at war against terror for a year and a half. Iraq and all others supporting terror provoked us then. We have been further provoked by the evidence I'll discuss in a second.
So let's just go ahead and assume we have not been provoked. The thought, then, is that we should wait until provocation to retaliate. Would the entire city of St. Louis getting hit with anthrax count as provocation? What about small pox breaking out in New York City? Maybe the nerve gas released in Iraq that killed 5,000 of their own could be released in the middle of Los Angeles. I would call all of that provocation. I would also prefer being pro-active to reactive. Weren't people upset a year and a half ago because the government had heard rumors of a possible attack and did not act to prevent it? If so, then why should those people be upset if our nation suspected that someone may have the means to use chemical warfare on us or anyone, and the government intervened?
That can lead us into point two...
2) The US does not have enough evidence to go to war with Iraq
I'd have to vehemently disagree with this. We have evidence that Iraq has already used weapons that they claimed not to have and were not allowed to have. Iraqi soldiers have been tested and found resistant to small pox. Some have had Cipro on them. I'm sure Saddam isn't just giving that out to his soldiers in case the US unleashes anthrax on them. Iraq has not allowed inspectors to enter certain areas and buildings or has made the inspectors wait. All of this evidence seems pretty strong to me. Are we positive they have some of this stuff? I guess not. I sure am not willing to wait until an outbreak in the US to find out, though. I am more disconcerted by the fact that we don't have evidence of Iraq NOT having the means to use chemical warfare.
By the way, these are UN resolutions that have been broken, not US resolutions. Why is the US enforcing them, then? Because most UN nations have no spine or are corrupt themselves! France has SUPPLIED Iraq with weapons! The investigators for the UN have gone repeatedly to Iraq and just accepted not being allowed into some areas. There is no indication that Iraq is safe. Saddam Hussein is in power, and there is much indication that he is dangerous.
I think Spam's quotes have sufficiently answered the idea that war should never be supported.