I've supported our troops and our president so far in this war with Iraq.
I have defended the president's actions plenty of times on the forums. I have defended America's Generals many times on the Forums.
Untill now.
I was watching fox news, and a bunch of retired Generals were saying how we were going to strike Syria or Iran because they gave a few weapons to Iraq during the war. They were absolutely going crazy over this idea. They wanted it so much, it scared the bejesus out of me.
Now, I am not sure if America is going to attack Syria or Iran, but that is the rumor.
If this happens, I will be upset. It isn't necessary. Sure, they supported the other side with guns, but our main purpose of this war was to remove control of the Saddam regime and restore a representative government for the people of Iraq.
We did that. War over.
So, what is your opinion on this rumor? What if it is fact? Explain how you feel.
(Hopefully, it is just a rumor, and we will not attack Syria OR Iran. If we were, I would not support the actions of the president, but I would still of course support the troops)
ive heard that too. i think it might be true. and im kinda afraid because iran no doubt has people crazy enough to do some funky sh.ite
That's what I've been trying to say from the beginning. True, the war went better than I expected. I'm glad. A bad person can no longer harm thousands of people and oppress millions more. As long as we sort out the chaos and bring order then allow the Iraqi's to move on with their lives, everyone will be happy and the world will think better of us.
But I don't think it will end here. Darth Rumsfeld has made too many threatening comments about Syria. Iran has been singled out for harboring terrorists and its nuclear program. North Korea is still on the horizon.
Preemptive war set a bad precident.
Nothing wrong with a preemptive strike. This isn't 1980 anymore, we can move on now. Does it really make sense to wait untill a possible threat becomes an attacking nation? Nip it in the bud.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Probaly not the first time you've heard that.
Uh-huh. But what, precisly, was the threat? We suspected that Saddam had WMD's. We still haven't found any, though we will. Of the that, I'm sure. Even if they weren't in the country when the war started.
The problem with preemptive strikes is that it relies on what you think an opponent is about to do.
If I'm walking down the street and a black man approaches me, looking dead at me and has his hand in his jacket pocket, it is reasonable (in the eyes of some) for me to suspect that I'm about to come under attack. Especially if he veered from his original course, picked up speed, and I'm in a particulary bad neighborhood.
Once in range, I leap into the air and execute a jumping side-kick to his face, cracking his skull and killing him. Looking in his pocket I find......
The answer I hope to have at that point is "gun," "knife," etc. But suppose the answer is his car keys. Or mine... I dropped them and he was returning them.
Even first year students of Political Science realized that if Hussein had WMDs, it was extremely unlikely that he would use them without provocation. Think about it. He would have to have a LOT of WMDs in order to use them and not expect instant, immediate consequences from the U.S., Israel, or any of the other "good guys" that also have WMDs.
For a ruler like Hussein, these are the kind of weapons you don't use when you have a microscope embeded in your anal cavity... When he used them in 1988, he almost went unnoticed.
Instead, these are the kinds of weapons one reserves for emergencies. When the enemy is at the gates, so to speak. When there is nothing left to lose.
As it happens, he didn't use his WMDs. There can only be four possibilities as I see it:
1) He ran out of time. Not really valid, since he had months to prepare a "booby trap." It took days for the ground troops to reach bagdad... surely enough time to arm a chemical bomb, poison a water supply, or detonate a nuke.
2) He wasn't as evil as we expected and could bring himself to do it. I doubt this one is valid.
3) His people weren't loyal enough. I don't see this one as valid either... he has people loyal enough to blow themselves up, including one woman who was alledged to be pregnant. I would think he could talk one of these into "okay... once I'm gone, detonate this barrel of liquid with all the C-4 taped to the side."
4) There were no WMDs. It won't be valid either. We will find some.
Preemptive strikes are NOT good. War should be a LAST RESORT! In the case of the Gulf War in '91, we had no other recourse but to attack. He refused to leave the nation of Kuwait. But I won't kid myself... it was as much about economics as this war. Only the conditions were different.
One last anology for preemptive stike: I suspect my neighbor for going about the neighborhood breaking into homes and raping wives. Even if I know it to be true, but can't prove it, I'm not allowed to break into his home and kill him in his sleep to prevent him from doing the same to me and my family.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
One last anology for preemptive stike: I suspect my neighbor for going about the neighborhood breaking into homes and raping wives. Even if I know it to be true, but can't prove it, I'm not allowed to break into his home and kill him in his sleep to prevent him from doing the same to me and my family.
Exactly. And we have these little things called LAWS that prevent people from doing stuff like that. There are some darn good reasons for this. "Innocent until proven guilty. Proven beyond reasonable doubt." Not "I kinda felt threatened so I shot him just to be safe."
That's not how a civilized community is supposed to function.
I find it pretty amazing that if you run a red light, you get ticketed...but if you break the very basic rules of international law, adopt a horrible "we can bomb anyone we like FIRST if we think they're a threat"-policy and invade a country, you get nothing. Not even a fine.
Kill one and you get the chair. Kill a billion and you're invited to the negotiating table.
Originally posted by obi-wan13
Now, I am not sure if America is going to attack Syria or Iran, but that is the rumor.
So, what is your opinion on this rumor? What if it is fact? Explain how you feel.
(Hopefully, it is just a rumor, and we will not attack Syria OR Iran. If we were, I would not support the actions of the president, but I would still of course support the troops)
Well I think this implies 1 of 2 possiblities. Bushes people have been dropping hints about Syria having "WMD". When did this happen? Just like they dropped hints about going after Iraq long before they actually did. So based on their past performance one might infer we will invade Syria soon.
However, I believe this "message" (as the Iraq attack has been called) is meant to scare Syria and Iran and whoever else.
I don't think Bushes people will try this. They have gone out on a limb over Iraq and I don't think US citizens would tolerate it the way we have tolerated the Iraq attack.
In case someone forgot, we DID find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Chemical warheads, containers filled with chemical weapons, and a chemical weapon plant.
Also, the war ISN'T over. The US still needs to take the rest of Iraq.
The US is NOT threatening Iran and Syria because of any WMD mumbo-jumbo. Iraqi Generals and officials may have retreated into Syria, thus, we need to get them out. All Syria has to do is cooperate and the US will leave them alone.
Honestly, I don't think the US will attack Syria or Iran. Iran and Syria have been neutral and stuff and attacking them will only be a necessity. But I don't think it will come
Originally posted by Rad707_Pandaz
In case someone forgot, we DID find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Chemical warheads, containers filled with chemical weapons, and a chemical weapon plant.
Yeah ok. So when is the rest of the world going to see proof of any of this? ;)
(for the record: yes, I believe Saddam is a bastard who definitely would aquire WOMD's if he could.)
The US is NOT threatening Iran and Syria because of any WMD mumbo-jumbo. Iraqi Generals and officials may have retreated into Syria, thus, we need to get them out. All Syria has to do is cooperate and the US will leave them alone.
...attacking them will only be a necessity.
LOL! Exactly. Reminds me of that guy who took a gun and went in to a bank and said "Just co-operate, give me all your money and no-one will get hurt!"
Obey us OR ELSE! :p That's just great. :rolleyes:
Seriously, Bush said Syria has WOMD's. Bush said Syria "must co-operate...or else". That is a pretty strange thing for one leader to say to another. I mean... all countries are still independent and equal, right?
Originally posted by Rad707_Pandaz
In case someone forgot, we DID find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Chemical warheads, containers filled with chemical weapons, and a chemical weapon plant.
The items to which you refer were confirmed to NOT be chemical weapons related. The plant was false. The barrels contained high-grade pesticide according to Gen. Freakly of the 101st Airborne.
They did however, locate 11 mobile labs... sans chemical weapons, however.
I'm really interested in hearing the final report on this whole operation.
Saddam is a clever guy... I bet he has all sorts of secrets hidden around Iraq. I just hope they won't put a "classified" stamp on everything. ;)
Thought this would be relevant to our discussion.
April 14, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration said Monday it will consider diplomatic, economic and other steps against Syria because of concerns that Damascus is harboring fleeing Iraqi leaders and has tested chemical weapons.
President Bush and his top officials would not say whether they are considering military action against Iraq's neighbor.
"We believe in light of this new environment, they should review their actions and their behavior," said Secretary of State Colin Powell. He said other nations in the Middle East might want to review past behavior as well, now that Saddam Hussein's government has collapsed.
Complete Story (
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/14/syria_us/index.html)
all they said was seria not iran, plus fox news carries things on a little too far, the generals whowanted it so much were probly told to, notice fox is the only channel who has some peolpe really far in iraq, its cuz they want the best story, and as for seria i support the president.
Originally posted by daring dueler
all they said was seria not iran, plus fox news carries things on a little too far, the generals whowanted it so much were probly told to, notice fox is the only channel who has some peolpe really far in iraq, its cuz they want the best story, and as for seria i support the president.
Er, they did say Iran. I didn't just imagine it. ;)
Fox news is the only one who has people inside Iraq, eh? Tell that to the CNN guy riding with the Marines 3209-58430958th battalion, or whatever.
On the Fox News debating programs, everyone tells their opinions, they were not "told" to say they wanted to take Syria. That is just what they want.
I supported the war with Iraq, but I think this is just a bit much.
Any of you think Bush has got the balls to take on N.Korea?
They've got a well-trained and well-equipped army rivaling the size of the US. A tricksy terrain and an underground cave network. Nukes. A thousand guns pointed at Seoul. A big-brother China.
But hey, USA's got the balls, right?
Y'all can start placing your bets now.
Originally posted by C'jais
Any of you think Bush has got the balls to take on N.Korea?
They've got a well-trained and well-equipped army rivaling the size of the US. A tricksy terrain and an underground cave network. Nukes. A thousand guns pointed at Seoul. A big-brother China.
But hey, USA's got the balls, right?
Y'all can start placing your bets now. no but i think he has the idiocy to do so.
I am against pre emptive strikes.....it's like minority report. At the beginning Tom Cruise says that just because you stop something from happening, doesn't mean it wasn't going to happen. But at the end it's not right, because you can change your mind, things can change.
And i'm glad to see that we're NOT going to attack Syria....that would be OUTRAGEOUS
This is going to get me alot of enemies, but I can't hold back anymore.
So far, every prediction I have ever had about Bush, has come true. He is a political cowboy and a war monger. I will be happy as Hell, when his term is over, (hopefully not another 4 years) and i'll vote for any nit wit that runs, just to get him the heck out of there.
America needs a regime change as well.
Our troops are tired. Give the war a rest. Give peace a chance.
*turns around and walks away*
Originally posted by Darth Groovy
This is going to get me alot of enemies, but I can't hold back anymore.
So far, every prediction I have ever had about Bush, has come true. He is a political cowboy and a war monger. I will be happy as Hell, when his term is over, (hopefully not another 4 years) and i'll vote for any nit wit that runs, just to get him the heck out of there.
America needs a regime change as well.
Our troops are tired. Give the war a rest. Give peace a chance.
*turns around and walks away*
YOUR THE MAN!!!
The latest statement from Colin Powell.
Powell declared. Raising the threat of punishment, he said, "We will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward. ... We'll see how things unfold."
By first declaring N.Korea a part of the "Axis of Evil" and then calling it a "local problem" he has effectively sent the message "get nukes as fast as you can to scare of USA"
I think Bush could consider attackiing anyone pre-emptively except for NATO countries and countries with nukes.