codeorama Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 redman, excellent post... I think you know from reading my posts that I'm not an ardent protestor. You won't ever find me out on the streets carrying an anti Bush sign. One thing that I unintentionally left out of the thread you quoted is the fact that I feel less safe as a result of the war rather than the other way around. In my opinion, our country tends to butt in a little too much sometimes (based on past history as well) for my taste. We tend to supply and train foriegn groups to serve our purposes only for them to pose a threat to us at a later date. The US has armed and trained quite a few terrorists, I posted a link to an article regarding that on another thread. WMD in my opinion, particularly nukes are the great equalizer, the peacemaker so to speak. If I were a foriegn country, I would do everything possible to aquire nukes. In my opinion, Russia is much more of a threat for terrorists to aquire WMD because of the unemployement, the black market, the mafia and so on... Because Russia has nukes, there is no way we would try to play hard ball with them like we have with Iraq. We know Iraq doesn't have nukes, so they are fair game.. Go back in history, would we have dropped the A bombs on Japan if they had nukes?? No. (I am not saying it was wrong, I think it saved tons of lives, just using that as an example of how nukes balance things out) Sure, we would all prefer if the US was the only country to possess nuclear weapons, but it doesn't work that way. With the fall of the USSR, there are more scientists out there looking for work. Bottom line... who are we to diminish other's ability to defend themselves? What in Iraq's history makes us think that they believe they could attack us and have it go unanswered? Saddam knows (or knew...) that the US would pound him into dust if he ever made and agressive move towards us. Am I saying I'm right, no... That's just my opinion. I'm proud to be an American, I support our troops and hope that they can get back home to their families ASAP. I don't care for preemptive strikes to prevent "possible" attacks. That doesn't make sense to me.. That's what Japan did to us at Pearl Harbor. If we are going to have this preemptive strike policy, is it going to apply to Russia or Iran or Syria or North Korea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by The Codeman IBut I was under the impression that this war was about Iraq being a threat to the US? Obviously now, that's not the case. In my opinion, the public was tricked into support, we were told that Iraq was a direct threat to the US and we needed to do something about it. Garbage.... I know some of you won't agree with me, but that's my opinion. You sure about that? Some may not view this as a "direct threat," but if it's true, I sure as hell do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by escholz You sure about that? Some may not view this as a "direct threat," but if it's true, I sure as hell do. Because there have been daily reports of the smoking gun and daily retractions, I'll withold jugement until the military is ready to hold a press conference revealing their finds. The media has been nothing short of reckless in it's pursuit of a scoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by The Codeman Bottom line... who are we to diminish other's ability to defend themselves? What in Iraq's history makes us think that they believe they could attack us and have it go unanswered? The WMD's in the hands of countries like N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran are not for defense in the way you and I use the term, but rather to project power onto others in their region to extend their influence. Certainly, they also provide those countries with a deterrent against attack, but that's just not where it stops. And that's the problem. As for your second point, we can't simply allow people to construct their hegemony over regions of the world. Even if the threat in the short term is not to us, history has shown that tyrants don't stop with just a little power. They keep building until they are stopped. Why not stop them early, when they are less powerful and the problem is less? And besides, nowadays our assets, both private sector and military, are everywhere and are subject to attack. You probably didn't do a lot of thinking about Yemen prior to the Cole being attacked in 8/2000, right? We simply can't allow these rogue regimes to dictate how the world conducts its business, particularly in these vital regions like the Middle East and the Far East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 redman, I have no problem with anything you have said, But I'm just more of an isolationist. If we want to be a part of something like the UN that "judges" other countries, I don't have as much of a problem with that. The UN obviously doesn't work in it's current form, something should be done. I fear that the repercussions down the road will be much worse. To me, I fear a terrorist with hate for America and a bunch of c4 or a stinger missle than I fear a country like N. Korea. I may be wrong, but I'm not the president and my opinion doens't hold people's lives within it. I just sit here and let my opinion be know, I don't actively protest or try to influence others. I think that I pretty consistant in saying that I respect everyone else's opinions, I just try to offer an opinion that is slightly different. If everyone had the same opinion... that would be pretty dangerous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Code I completely disagree with you. They did find a terrorist camp in Iraq, do you think there could have been so anti american flags there?? The main reason why Sadam was such a threat is he didn't want to be the one like Osama, he liked his life and the way he lived it. However, he did have the money to help others to terror on to us. He paid for suicide bombinging in Israel. How can you sit there and say he didn't pay any terrorists to attack us. The other difference as well is the Iraqi government was not trying to find there terrosists and put them in jails. Other countries like Iran, Turkey, Russia, Phillapines, Pakistan, Egypt, etc..... yes they don't agree with us, but they were trying to bring in the terrorists. You are right Iraq couldn't hurt us today, but what about 20 years from now or 10, you can't answer that can you. North Korea a couple of years ago didn't have Nuclear weapons. Now they might have one that can hit California. What I am trying to say once Sadam had the ability do something he would, we had to stike now and get him out. 10 years from now the war could have been a lot worse. This is similar to the whole Hitler episode in the ealry 30's. Had the european nations had any balls they would have taken care of him earlier, they didn't and the rest is history. There will never be peace in this world till all the dictators like Sadam are out of power. We live in a completely different time now, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans can't stop a missle from coming here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.