Reply to Re: Should America go to war?
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Wow..this is going to erupt quite quickly..
Well I'm not going to go too deep into it, as that would take a long-ass time, but I do not think that America should go to war. In fact, at our high school we've started an awareness protest and we hand out information and wear arm bands.
Quite frankly, there is no need for war. It is true that Saddam is a really horrible dictator that does need to be taken out. Does this mean that we destroy Iraq? Most the civilians follow Saddam because he can unite them and get them thinking commonly, and right now its against America. Obviously, bombing their country will help. And in the end, we'll have a ruined Iraq, their economy even worse than it already is, with no government. What'll we do? Naturally, set up a democracy, thats the right thing to do. Only, as most people in Washington cannot understand, democracy simply cannot work everywhere. Iraq, right now, needs a dictatorship. A democracy, which will be a puppet democracy anyway, will divide their country and send it into an even worse depression.
The current plan calls for 300-400 cruise missles to be fired a day for as many days as is neccesary, predicted to begin in late Febuary or early March. These missles range in cost anywhere from half a million to ten million dollars a piece. And if you think that they're not planning a land invasion with many predicted casualties, how do you explain the fact that 77,000 body bags have been ordered, where in 1991 only 16,000 were ordered. And is it a coincidence that Bush is stalling the development of the Hydrogen car, despite talking nicely of it in his state of the union speech, by awarding oil companies and giving government money to people who buy SUVs? Bush is trying to push this war to finish what his father screwed up, and for oil. He has no regard for the US economy, the Iraq economy, or human lives.
Saddam could be takken out of power by half a dozen well trained infiltrative specialists. Instead, we ignore the fact that our economy is still bad, and get ready to throw billions into destroying a country that is already in shambles. What will taking out their hostpitals and factories do? It will set them back further, and we'll need to pull them back up. I guess we could not do that, but usually the US steps in as the "good guys" after a war and "helps them out", even if it was our fault they're sitting where they are. And the fact is, it is in a large part this US's fault that Iraq is as bad as it is right now, because we should have takken care of Saddam and started the country down a better road when we had the chance ten years ago.
Of course, the rest of the world is against us, save the British, who have to be with us, and the Australians, who I have no idea why they support us, because we speak english too? Whatever. The point is, everyone else knows how foolish this is. Yes, there's a good chance that Saddam has weapons. But are the weapons the real problem? The US has the most weapons of all, and look how great we are
Obviously, the weapon production would be stopped were Saddam taken care of and a good dictator with Iraq's interests, not the US's, was put in place.
I'd get into more as to why we shouldn't go to war, but I'm done rambling for now, and you can find facts all over the place. They're just my opinions anyway. I guess I don't believe blood for oil is a good trade.
Well I'm not going to go too deep into it, as that would take a long-ass time, but I do not think that America should go to war. In fact, at our high school we've started an awareness protest and we hand out information and wear arm bands.
Quite frankly, there is no need for war. It is true that Saddam is a really horrible dictator that does need to be taken out. Does this mean that we destroy Iraq? Most the civilians follow Saddam because he can unite them and get them thinking commonly, and right now its against America. Obviously, bombing their country will help. And in the end, we'll have a ruined Iraq, their economy even worse than it already is, with no government. What'll we do? Naturally, set up a democracy, thats the right thing to do. Only, as most people in Washington cannot understand, democracy simply cannot work everywhere. Iraq, right now, needs a dictatorship. A democracy, which will be a puppet democracy anyway, will divide their country and send it into an even worse depression.
The current plan calls for 300-400 cruise missles to be fired a day for as many days as is neccesary, predicted to begin in late Febuary or early March. These missles range in cost anywhere from half a million to ten million dollars a piece. And if you think that they're not planning a land invasion with many predicted casualties, how do you explain the fact that 77,000 body bags have been ordered, where in 1991 only 16,000 were ordered. And is it a coincidence that Bush is stalling the development of the Hydrogen car, despite talking nicely of it in his state of the union speech, by awarding oil companies and giving government money to people who buy SUVs? Bush is trying to push this war to finish what his father screwed up, and for oil. He has no regard for the US economy, the Iraq economy, or human lives.
Saddam could be takken out of power by half a dozen well trained infiltrative specialists. Instead, we ignore the fact that our economy is still bad, and get ready to throw billions into destroying a country that is already in shambles. What will taking out their hostpitals and factories do? It will set them back further, and we'll need to pull them back up. I guess we could not do that, but usually the US steps in as the "good guys" after a war and "helps them out", even if it was our fault they're sitting where they are. And the fact is, it is in a large part this US's fault that Iraq is as bad as it is right now, because we should have takken care of Saddam and started the country down a better road when we had the chance ten years ago.
Of course, the rest of the world is against us, save the British, who have to be with us, and the Australians, who I have no idea why they support us, because we speak english too? Whatever. The point is, everyone else knows how foolish this is. Yes, there's a good chance that Saddam has weapons. But are the weapons the real problem? The US has the most weapons of all, and look how great we are
Obviously, the weapon production would be stopped were Saddam taken care of and a good dictator with Iraq's interests, not the US's, was put in place. I'd get into more as to why we shouldn't go to war, but I'm done rambling for now, and you can find facts all over the place. They're just my opinions anyway. I guess I don't believe blood for oil is a good trade.
