Reply to Re: Should America go to war?
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Yes, I agree with Alli, those are good points. I'll try not totake any sides though, and just point out a few things.
Prove this war is about oil. Of course oil is most likely a side quest type thing, it is definitely not a major reason for wanting to go to war.
Also, war may strengthen US economy. Think about it. What did World War II do? That was one of the turning points in US history. Because we chose to go to war. It's a little different, I know, but still.
On the other hand, something the US should be cautious of. What does a wild animal do when it's cornered? yeah, it tries to escape at first, but what about when it knows it can't escape? It tries to destroy or damage its enemy as much as possible before losing. US is the elephant that was fearful of the poisonous snake. The elephant stomps on the snake, but the snake bites the leg as it dies, crippling the elephant. Then the weakened elephant may be susceptible to hyenas, lions. US's other stronger, and perhaps secret enemies waiting for their chance. Not saying that's how it will happen, but it's a thought.
The US has weapons. True. More weapons than anybody else in the world. But we were provoked, and they're hostile towards us. But I don't agree with the tactics. Still, when somebody smaller than you with a butcher knife and 20 dollars in his pocket is hostile, do you sit back and relax with you guard down? Or do you try to take the knife from him by asking at first, and if he doesn't listen, take it by force with better tactics, knowing that you'd only suffer minor injuries, and 20 extra bucks in your pocket? This is all it is, anyways.
Bush has no regard for human lives? If he didn't, we'd nuke every little square inch of that place. If he didn't, we wouldn't send ground troops in, so there'd be less civilian casualties, instead of sending off missiles to blow up every city they have. You're just exaggerating things, and only looking on one side here.
Also, it could be that Iraq needs a dictatorship right now, but I don't think so. Especially not under Saddam. You know what he does with the oil money he earns? He builds mansions. For himself. Doesn't even help the poor. If anything, we need to help Iraq get back on track here, by first removing Saddam's horrible "leadership".
Hm. There. That wasn't as well said or insightful as yours, but they're sitll thoughts. I'd say more, and say it better, but I don't have much time, and don't feel like ranting insanely.
Prove this war is about oil. Of course oil is most likely a side quest type thing, it is definitely not a major reason for wanting to go to war.
Also, war may strengthen US economy. Think about it. What did World War II do? That was one of the turning points in US history. Because we chose to go to war. It's a little different, I know, but still.
On the other hand, something the US should be cautious of. What does a wild animal do when it's cornered? yeah, it tries to escape at first, but what about when it knows it can't escape? It tries to destroy or damage its enemy as much as possible before losing. US is the elephant that was fearful of the poisonous snake. The elephant stomps on the snake, but the snake bites the leg as it dies, crippling the elephant. Then the weakened elephant may be susceptible to hyenas, lions. US's other stronger, and perhaps secret enemies waiting for their chance. Not saying that's how it will happen, but it's a thought.
The US has weapons. True. More weapons than anybody else in the world. But we were provoked, and they're hostile towards us. But I don't agree with the tactics. Still, when somebody smaller than you with a butcher knife and 20 dollars in his pocket is hostile, do you sit back and relax with you guard down? Or do you try to take the knife from him by asking at first, and if he doesn't listen, take it by force with better tactics, knowing that you'd only suffer minor injuries, and 20 extra bucks in your pocket? This is all it is, anyways.
Bush has no regard for human lives? If he didn't, we'd nuke every little square inch of that place. If he didn't, we wouldn't send ground troops in, so there'd be less civilian casualties, instead of sending off missiles to blow up every city they have. You're just exaggerating things, and only looking on one side here.
Also, it could be that Iraq needs a dictatorship right now, but I don't think so. Especially not under Saddam. You know what he does with the oil money he earns? He builds mansions. For himself. Doesn't even help the poor. If anything, we need to help Iraq get back on track here, by first removing Saddam's horrible "leadership".
Hm. There. That wasn't as well said or insightful as yours, but they're sitll thoughts. I'd say more, and say it better, but I don't have much time, and don't feel like ranting insanely.
