Reply to Re: Should America go to war?
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Eh, sorry about not responding earlier, I was going to, but I just found myself too lazy before.
First of all, I'm not contradicting you to piss you off or be a jerk. Okay, moving on.
"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."
Maybe I do, but if I do, I have an equal chance to also highly underestimate Iraq's abilities. Government estimations are much better than mine, but estimations are, after all, just estimations.
"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."
I remember something like blood for oil is a bad trade. Or something like that. Anyways, you just restated that it's a reason, and still you've proved nothing. I do believe that is an afterthought however, but nothing close to one of the main reasons.
Concerning the economy. Do you think people operating daily in fear of terrorist attack is helping the economy? Also, since oil isn't a reason for going, but an afterthought after finishing, we could obtain oil for lower prices. And I won't have to explain why that's good for America, I hope.
"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."
Uh. That's the thing. You haven't listed anything. You said for yourself that if Saddam had weapons, which the US government is fairly sure of, he would use them on the US, if we minded our own business. You just stated the obvious here though, saying that he does have to be dealt with, and he must be taken out of power. HOW? If we can't even find their weapon factories how can we expect to get Saddam and his followers? Do us a favor by enlightening us with your alternatives that government officials who analyze these kinds of things for life haven't thought of, and decided that war IS the best way.
"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."
What are you trying to point out here? Sure we have nuclear weapons, but we have them as a last resort. We're the world's police. We can't deal with everything, but what we think is most pressing, we deal with, keeping in mind that nothing can go perfectly.
"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."
No, not all of Iraq. But we can't do this efficiently without harming some civilians. When you get chemotherapy for cancer, you harm the normal parts of the body too, but the main cells that die are cancer cells. There is no perfect war. And help them economically? If you mean give them money, Saddam controls it all. We'd just be givin him money for palaces and weapons. And the only way to help them in their government is to get rid of the dictatorship, which is possible now only by taking over their government and helping them reconstruct it.
"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."
Like I said, there's no perfect war. You're talking like there's a way for nobody to die. While these are some good reasons why NOT to go to war, I haven't seen one good alternative yet.
Okay, war is a terrible solution. But what'll happen if we dont' go to war? Do you want them to nuke us and then go to war? We've waited long enough. Saddam has his mind set. We HAVE to take action.
"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."
We could've done better, but a lot of things in this world could've been done better. Deal with it. That's how it was done. The faultfinder can find fault even in paradise. But again, are you waiting for Iraq to invade us first and then strike? That's what your'e implying, so I could call you a dumbass, but I won't be a jerk like you were to others. But we'll see what the UN decides soon.
I've sort of taken sides now by arguing only against anti-war people, but oh well. Screw it. I was expecting pro-war people to post, and debate that too, but whatever.
First of all, I'm not contradicting you to piss you off or be a jerk. Okay, moving on.
"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."
Maybe I do, but if I do, I have an equal chance to also highly underestimate Iraq's abilities. Government estimations are much better than mine, but estimations are, after all, just estimations.
"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."
I remember something like blood for oil is a bad trade. Or something like that. Anyways, you just restated that it's a reason, and still you've proved nothing. I do believe that is an afterthought however, but nothing close to one of the main reasons.
Concerning the economy. Do you think people operating daily in fear of terrorist attack is helping the economy? Also, since oil isn't a reason for going, but an afterthought after finishing, we could obtain oil for lower prices. And I won't have to explain why that's good for America, I hope.
"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."
Uh. That's the thing. You haven't listed anything. You said for yourself that if Saddam had weapons, which the US government is fairly sure of, he would use them on the US, if we minded our own business. You just stated the obvious here though, saying that he does have to be dealt with, and he must be taken out of power. HOW? If we can't even find their weapon factories how can we expect to get Saddam and his followers? Do us a favor by enlightening us with your alternatives that government officials who analyze these kinds of things for life haven't thought of, and decided that war IS the best way.
"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."
What are you trying to point out here? Sure we have nuclear weapons, but we have them as a last resort. We're the world's police. We can't deal with everything, but what we think is most pressing, we deal with, keeping in mind that nothing can go perfectly.
"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."
No, not all of Iraq. But we can't do this efficiently without harming some civilians. When you get chemotherapy for cancer, you harm the normal parts of the body too, but the main cells that die are cancer cells. There is no perfect war. And help them economically? If you mean give them money, Saddam controls it all. We'd just be givin him money for palaces and weapons. And the only way to help them in their government is to get rid of the dictatorship, which is possible now only by taking over their government and helping them reconstruct it.
"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."
Like I said, there's no perfect war. You're talking like there's a way for nobody to die. While these are some good reasons why NOT to go to war, I haven't seen one good alternative yet.
Okay, war is a terrible solution. But what'll happen if we dont' go to war? Do you want them to nuke us and then go to war? We've waited long enough. Saddam has his mind set. We HAVE to take action.
"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."
We could've done better, but a lot of things in this world could've been done better. Deal with it. That's how it was done. The faultfinder can find fault even in paradise. But again, are you waiting for Iraq to invade us first and then strike? That's what your'e implying, so I could call you a dumbass, but I won't be a jerk like you were to others. But we'll see what the UN decides soon.
I've sort of taken sides now by arguing only against anti-war people, but oh well. Screw it. I was expecting pro-war people to post, and debate that too, but whatever.
