Zygomaticus Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 krkrode- I guess you didn't get my point. Those war had a provoking first( Afghan war after 9/11, 9/11 being the provocative thing). This time, Saddam didn't provoke no-one. Preventive means to avoid things that WILL happen. We arent even sure if saddam has any weapons of mass destruction. But do we want to make sure? We should've been going after Bin Ladin for a long time. Unfortunately, eyes were opened only after 9/11. Do we want to fight this war over another x thousand people dead or do we want to fight it over preventing a possible x thousand people from dying. Like Rhett said in another thread - are we waiting for an autographed video cassette from Saddam showing us that he has/has not WOMD? No. He should be showing whatever he has to the UN inspectors, not leading them on a wild hide and seek chase. Saddam isn't necessarily the best of men, and the world could do without him and his supporters. So could Iraq, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Tie Guy- Are you saying that american lifes are more important then others? 'cause this can turn into a WWIII which will kill much more then 7 millions! Of course I don't want anyone to die and I just want to avoid war as much as possible. if you can prove me that saddam will use weapons of mass destruction, then I will turn to your side. Heck! North Korea has TWO a-bombs. Why not attacking them??? No, of course all human life is extremely valuable, but when you have a small group of men trying to kill millions, isn't it better to kill the few than sacrifice the millions? And let's get this straight, we don't want to go to war. If Saddam would either show us proof of the weapons destruction (which he obviously doesn't have or he would have shown us already), or admit all his weapons and completely disarm we could end this conflict. But Saddam won't do that, because he wants to attack and kill Americans and/or Israelis. Now, you tell me which is more valuable, Saddam's life, or the millions of Americans and Israelis he threatens. Oh, and you'd have your answer to the Korea question if you'd read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy But Saddam won't do that, because he wants to attack and kill Americans and/or Israelis. Sure thing, Mr Saddam-is-a-danger-to-the-US. I'm just wondering about two things: 1)What are you going to do once Saddam has been removed? Hope Democracy magically pops up in Iraq since you've now made yourself enemies with even more countries in the middle east? You think killing Saddam is going to decrease the terrorist attacks? 2)How exactly are you going to take Baghdad without enormous civilian casualties? Bomb it to Allah and back, and hope it surrenders? Go into city fights and make your nifty tanks and rockets useless, while at the same time fighting on the enemy's terms? Russia once tried to do this, and they're were spanked so hard it wasn't even funny - even though they bombed the city from miles away with rockets before entering (which the US probably won't do because of the civilian casualties). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 How exactly are you going to take Baghdad without enormous civilian casualties? Bomb it to Allah and back, and hope it surrenders? Go into city fights and make your nifty tanks and rockets useless, while at the same time fighting on the enemy's terms? Russia once tried to do this, and they're were spanked so hard it wasn't even funny - even though they bombed the city from miles away with rockets before entering (which the US probably won't do because of the civilian casualties). Tie Guy wouldn't/mightn't/shouldn't know that. There are people trained and in training who are probably working their arses off everyday to find the best way possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Of course I don't care a load of crap about Saddam. He should be disposed of I never said anything against Saddam. But then by killing him you might turn him into a martyr and more people are gonna be up against you like C'jais said. And is making the Iraqis suffer gonna help them like you? Half of the Iraqi people(if not more) hate Saddam but what can they do against him?Nothing. And Overall you're gonna make them suffer another war they don't want to fight. And if Saddam was so dangerous, you could have disposed of him a long time ago. He may be a threat to the Israelis first but then it's actually their problem. Help them if you want but be prepare to face the consequences. You helped us during the Viet-Nam war and you lost not only your pride but many good soldiers. you made the war last for 12 yrs and with that killed more then it should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by krkode The American Revolutionary war prevented another possible century of british rule. Seeing both sides... the British got what it wanted they got the trade of the colonies except now they didn't have to run it AND the French went bankrupt helping us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Lord Fergie Seeing both sides... the British got what it wanted they got the trade of the colonies except now they didn't have to run it AND the French went bankrupt helping us The advantages were seen only after the war was lost. While they were fighting it, they still wanted to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.