Reply to Re: Should America go to war?
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
EatTheRats, a few things.
First off, as far as avoiding war, it can be done. About not being able to get in and take him out, I think you highly underestimate the US's ability to be fellowly.
As far as proving the war is for oil. Well I never said it was just for oil, but it's a reason, and a really horrible reason. The other reasons I listed already.
Helping the economy? Seriously dude, have you been paying attention to Bush's plans? He is attempting to stimulate the economy with less taxes, and getting money back to the 'common family', rather than helping people that actually need help. Bush's plan is like every republican plan to date, make the rich richer and the poor poorer, its no different, he just tries to make it sound nice, it's a redistribution of wealth, after all, just not a good one. And helping the economy? In WWII millions of jobs were created. Minorites and women were getting into factories where men had left and factories were getting reopened by government stimulation. This created supply and demand. This war is nothing like that. Instead, we are taking the money we could be using on education and social welfare and throwing it away. No jobs will be created. If anything, the lack of government money could lead to layoffs in government positions. How could it possibly help our economy? On top of that, you have to look at what we're doing to Iraq. Honestly, you can wave your finger and say they deserve it all they want, but what's it going to help? We need to help the country along, not destroy it. And no, Washington wouldn't let Bush nuke Iraq to hell, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't, he might hurt the oil.
As far as better alternatives? Besides the ideas i've listed, such as taking out the power in Iraq and putting up a reliable power, there is little chance of peace. Saddam simply wouldn't allow any kind of agreements, and he's been given a chance. He's going against charters and agreements, and must be dealt with.
And the idea behind nuclear weapons needs to be dealt with a bit. You have to think about the fact that the US has enough power to destroy the world over dozens of times, yet tries to keep every other country in the world from having any at all. I think the best way to prove that weapons are not the answer is a serious disarment. We do need to keep enough to keep the upper hand, as they can be used as a peace-keeping tool (but not necesarily will be), and that has been proven.
And yes we were provoked, but does that mean that we should lash out against all of Iraq? We can say we're going to war to take out Saddam, but what does that mean to the citizens of Iraq. First off, they feel comfortable under Saddam, for the most part. They see the US as an agressor. The best way to rid ourselves of that portrayel would be to help them out both economicaly and governmentaly. The best way to fuel that hatred would be to kill them. And while sending in ground troops seems the best solution, you have to think of the fact that the civilians will also want to kill the troops. Yes, propoganda is being dropped, telling them not too, but Iraq will use its civilians against us, knowing we will not want to kill them. And as far as the body bags go, those are for us. We wouldn't need them if we didn't send in ground troops the way we plan to.
And the quote: "War isn't THAT terrible a solution" What the hell kinds of drugs are you on? Honestly man, you could possibly have lost more of my respect if you said you believed in underpants gnomes, but not likely.
And Afganastan. Question: When's the last time you heard anything about Afganastan? Think we're still doing anything in Afganastan? If you said "No, we did our job and got out" you're an idiot, congratulations. The fact is, thats not all we did for Afganastan. We rid them of a horrible regime, but as far as their customs and rights for females etc, we had no right to try and change. In an interview with a traveling correspondant, a female their berated American's for not understanding their own custom's, and the fact that they were happy the way they were. And the US is still in Afganastan, but mostly for the sake of keeping the place under control. We could have done that better, but we didn't do too horrible, and not many are arguing that we invaded unjustly, where as for Iraq its the rest of the world arguing against us.
An eye for an eye only makes the world blind.
First off, as far as avoiding war, it can be done. About not being able to get in and take him out, I think you highly underestimate the US's ability to be fellowly.
As far as proving the war is for oil. Well I never said it was just for oil, but it's a reason, and a really horrible reason. The other reasons I listed already.
Helping the economy? Seriously dude, have you been paying attention to Bush's plans? He is attempting to stimulate the economy with less taxes, and getting money back to the 'common family', rather than helping people that actually need help. Bush's plan is like every republican plan to date, make the rich richer and the poor poorer, its no different, he just tries to make it sound nice, it's a redistribution of wealth, after all, just not a good one. And helping the economy? In WWII millions of jobs were created. Minorites and women were getting into factories where men had left and factories were getting reopened by government stimulation. This created supply and demand. This war is nothing like that. Instead, we are taking the money we could be using on education and social welfare and throwing it away. No jobs will be created. If anything, the lack of government money could lead to layoffs in government positions. How could it possibly help our economy? On top of that, you have to look at what we're doing to Iraq. Honestly, you can wave your finger and say they deserve it all they want, but what's it going to help? We need to help the country along, not destroy it. And no, Washington wouldn't let Bush nuke Iraq to hell, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't, he might hurt the oil.
As far as better alternatives? Besides the ideas i've listed, such as taking out the power in Iraq and putting up a reliable power, there is little chance of peace. Saddam simply wouldn't allow any kind of agreements, and he's been given a chance. He's going against charters and agreements, and must be dealt with.
And the idea behind nuclear weapons needs to be dealt with a bit. You have to think about the fact that the US has enough power to destroy the world over dozens of times, yet tries to keep every other country in the world from having any at all. I think the best way to prove that weapons are not the answer is a serious disarment. We do need to keep enough to keep the upper hand, as they can be used as a peace-keeping tool (but not necesarily will be), and that has been proven.
And yes we were provoked, but does that mean that we should lash out against all of Iraq? We can say we're going to war to take out Saddam, but what does that mean to the citizens of Iraq. First off, they feel comfortable under Saddam, for the most part. They see the US as an agressor. The best way to rid ourselves of that portrayel would be to help them out both economicaly and governmentaly. The best way to fuel that hatred would be to kill them. And while sending in ground troops seems the best solution, you have to think of the fact that the civilians will also want to kill the troops. Yes, propoganda is being dropped, telling them not too, but Iraq will use its civilians against us, knowing we will not want to kill them. And as far as the body bags go, those are for us. We wouldn't need them if we didn't send in ground troops the way we plan to.
And the quote: "War isn't THAT terrible a solution" What the hell kinds of drugs are you on? Honestly man, you could possibly have lost more of my respect if you said you believed in underpants gnomes, but not likely.
And Afganastan. Question: When's the last time you heard anything about Afganastan? Think we're still doing anything in Afganastan? If you said "No, we did our job and got out" you're an idiot, congratulations. The fact is, thats not all we did for Afganastan. We rid them of a horrible regime, but as far as their customs and rights for females etc, we had no right to try and change. In an interview with a traveling correspondant, a female their berated American's for not understanding their own custom's, and the fact that they were happy the way they were. And the US is still in Afganastan, but mostly for the sake of keeping the place under control. We could have done that better, but we didn't do too horrible, and not many are arguing that we invaded unjustly, where as for Iraq its the rest of the world arguing against us.
An eye for an eye only makes the world blind.
