This is a more serious topic but I want to see what people here think...
This is a more serious topic but I want to see what people here think...
Not right now. Maybe eventually. I don't think wars solve much any more. I would just make a lot of other countries hate us more and there are enough of them now. I just can't see how killing solves anything.
Make peace, not war.
I have an 18 year old son.......need I say more! :( 42
<span style="colorurple;font-family:georgia;font-size:x-small;">If we do find weapons, then fine. But Iraq is already a mess of a country, the people are starving, they have no medication to take care of the sick, and what are we going to do? Bomb them? Yeah, that looks good.:rolleyes:
And, meanwhile, North Korea is making nuclear bombs...
I said yes
and before you say I'm too young to understand I have a friend 6 months older than I am and she is over in S. Korea... and she's said that there's no reason for us not to...
Saddam should have been taken out a long time ago.
now I'm leaving this discussion because I don't want to get yelled at :lol:
and they HAVE found illegal weapons... no nuclear ones *YET* but they have found missiles that are long range... longer than what's legal... it was reported on the news last night
Not mad at you for your opinion at all. I understand. I just remember what war was like. I was a child during World War One. I know there is no way to reason with those kind of people. Wish they would have got rid of those evil ones years ago without a war.
I said unsure. My problem with the current situation is that it seems short sighted - what is our definitive long term goal? - when will we leave?
Ok, we go in and bomb the place even further into the dark ages. It's citzenry suffers (not all of these people are terrorists). We occupy for however long, until whatever goal is reached (capturing/killing Saddam is not a goal - if not him, there could be some other even more extreme looney tune.) So, we occupy until when?
If we don't go to war, what happens? US looks like it's backed off. Political posturing. Will it make the population safer? Or will it encourage the wackos to give it another try?
This area of the world has been prized for it's oil and strategic location. Isn't it time to develop alternatives to oil which will reduce the importance of this region to the world and the world's economy? Since Carter, there hasn't been a single administration which has supported such an endeavor with conviction.
Generally, I believe that there will be war. I hope it does not hit the homefront. I hope it is brief because the economy cannot endure a long one. I hope Saddam is captured - he must not be made a matyr. I hope Osama is located - dead or alive - again he must not be made a matyr. I hope our leadership has a viable goal in mind which will not mean UN occupation for many years.
i think anyone who answered yes to this question should watch the movie "Bowling for Columbine." It might change their view a bit.
Much of this is a diversion from the economy. Aside from that I can't see 100,000 Americans dying for a non proven reason. I also can't see a million innocent Iraqis dying. No one country attacked the US.
Everyone including the countries in the Middle East want to see Saddam go but not by international war. They could do it the old fashioned way of creating unrest in a country provoking coup d'etat.
"Thou shalt not kill"
I know some here are religious and some are not. I am a woman of faith and the above says it for me. I believe we are all part of God (however one perceives God-he/she has many names and personifications) when we kill one another we kill part of ourselves.
I hope and pray this war does not come to pass.
I am very suspicious of W's motivations.
Peace and Happy Valentine's Day
I should throw in my 2 cents as well...I think we should <strong>NOT</strong> go to war in Iraq at the moment...I don't think that Iraq poses an immediate threat to the US, however I'm all for disarming Saddam Hussein. I know he has done this for many years but this might be the first time he has been under intense scrutiny to disarm. I personally would give it more time (I think GWB is WAY too impatient), allow the UN to grant a second resolution, see how things work out, and if Saddam still doesn't disarm, then war should only be a last resort. I still don't want there to be a war, but if we have to, I guess we have to...
<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2"> there's no reason for us not to...</blockquote>
I think this is exactly missing the point. The case never has to be made against the war, only for it. (BTW, I'm not yelling at you for your opinion, only expressing mine.)
My big problem is that I do not trust this administration anymore. While I believe that Sadam probably does have weapons, it makes no sense to me that he would have any conenction to Al Queda. I mean, Sadam and Osama are the worst of enemies; I interpreted Osama's last message as more like, "Let's first kill the Americans, and only then Sadam".
I also find it disconcerting that we hear so little about casualties. We do hear somewhat about possible US ones, and occasionally a word or two is mentioned about Iraqi civilian ones. Well, what about Iraqi combatants? They are human too, you know.
Finally, I find it extremely offensive when W. talks about "liberating Iraq". We may have good reasons to go to war with Sadam (though I don't think we do), but it is hypocritical at best to pretend we are doing it "for their good". And, BTW, can you spell O-I-L?
One last word. I think this is an issue on which Clinton made a huge misake while he was in office. When Iraq kicked out the inspectors, he should have pressed there and then, not give Sadam the impression he can get away with it. Also, I do not really have a problem with Bush's unilateralism -- I think US should do whatever it thinks is right, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. This, however, is not to say that I agree with the Bush policy on Iraq at all.
War? I said unsure. Because I AM unsure. War is not a good solution, but sometimes unavoidable. Necessary to protect or assist others. But war, now, against Iraq?
I was against the war in Viet Nam. I haven't become any fonder of war. I just don't see that this is necessary for our protection, although it might be necessary for the protection of Israel. But the Israelis depend on themselves, since the world has such a dismal record of supporting them. War with North Korea mostly concerns our ally, Japan. The N.Koreans are not a realistic threat to the US.
Assist others? Which others would we be assisting? Going to war in Afghanistan has not solved much. The Taliban was deposed, but they only held power in part of the country anyway. Outside of Kabul, "power" is dispersed among warlords. Who was assisted there? The warlords?
I don't think the administration has a realistic sense of what war with Iraq would be like. And I am absolutely sure that they have no clue about how to manage the after-effects. They aren't doing such a good job in Afghanistan, and we at least have allies and some measure of world support there. (OK, a very small measure. The world really hasn't done much to tame the warlords or help rebuild the civilization and infrastructure there. At least they sent some troops and some food and medicine.)
I also have a mother's perspective on this. My son is on active duty because of this war on terrorism. While he is presently safely stationed in the US, a war could definitely place him in harm's way. I feel stressed myself. I can only imagine how those who have loved ones in or on the way to the Mideast feel.
I intend to attend some antiwar rallies and peace prayer activities this weekend. Please pray for a peaceful resolution.
Nice post, Jo.
I, too, am very sceptical of "after-the-war". However, I do think there is a potential of doing things better than they were done in Afghanistan. Below is my list of reasons:
1. Central Government Iraq already has a central government, whereas in Afghanistan we were trying to create something that was never there.
2. $$$ Iraq has a lot of wealth in oil; therefore, it is in US's economic interest to help them build a stable society.
3. Pre-existing society Iraq is a country with a decent level of education even now, and it was at a much higher level before the sanctions. Therefore, similar to point #1, there is something there to rebuild. This is in stark contrast to Afghanistan, which has been at war for longer than anybody can remember.
In short, Afghanistan was perhaps the toughest place in the Middle East to rebuild. While Iraq is not the easiest, it is near the top of the list. In other words, I am not sure anything could have been done in Afghanistan; in Iraq, it is I think possible, provided there is a will, patience, and international support. Whether or not we will have that is a million dollar question (actually, a multi-billion dollar one).