To be honest, I've had trouble getting worked up one way or the other, most likely as a result of our modern sanitized warfare methods. It's hard to get too nervous about American lives when we'll probably use smart bombs to send them back to the stone ages before troops are even in danger.
I do believe that Sadam is a bad human being and a blight on his people. I do believe that he should be removed from power. However, I'm sure I see it as our place to do so. There are tyranical nutjobs running countries all over the world. The people that live under these lunatics will never develop a culture of fanatical freedom until they themselves step up to take what is rightfully theirs.
What's more, it's this sort of action that is responsible for the general sentiment against the US in the middle east. Ideally, I'd say isolate the lot of them. The entire region is simply less developed and the resemblance between their current state and that of Europe in the dark ages is striking. If we all ignored them entirely and didn't communicate with the region at all, it might develop into a modern society on its own. As is, we're only perpetuating the state of the region by strengthening the autocratic governments. And we're doing so while providing more fodder for a fanatical religious movement that had absolutely no support in the region prior to our involvement.
All that said, I certainly won't cry over the destruction of the government there and it would be interesting to see a prodominantly muslim nation with a republic government. I'm curious what impact a free nation in the region with no theocratic leanings and equality for even the women will have on the area. Liberty has a tendency to become infectious.
What does bother me is that a lot of those protesting this war are the same lame people that ran out and bought United We Stand stickers for their car after the World Trade Center was destroyed. There's little I hate more than those that vacilate with the pulse of the mob.
I don't think N. Korea is actually stupid enough to attempt to use what little nuclear power they have. MAD is still our policy toward any WMD. One or two nukes is hardly enough to make a dent in the US, though I have no faith in their untested rocket actually making it here. It took us years and years and billions of dollars to perfect the ICBM. I don't see them accomplishing this. If they used it against S. Korea, harming our troops in the process, a sub would surface off the coast and reduce the entire country to scorched rice patties.
LMAO...scorched rice patties...I agree with you on the N. Korea subject Semi...not too worried about them. Although Sadaam I definately am...hes a freakin lunatic with alot of nuclear power in his hands. Oh and I totally agree with you on the stand about these students protesting...freakin people need to wake up and smell the coffee!!! Heres a good quote I found on my take on the war, and if you know history you know this to be true:
"And so we have come to our current Rogue's Gallery: Hitler, Stalin, Nasser, Castro, Ghaddafi, Saddam and Bin Laden, all cut from the same cloth, all of whom must be ´stopped´ because ´appeasement´ is always wrong. How do we know that? Churchill told us so."
I hate to say it, but I'm against war unless it's absolutely, positively necessary. I'm a vet and I've been to the gulf. I do believe that in this case, there's more than meets the eye and while this is likely mostly about a strategic reserve of oil, it's also about a guy who sponsors terrorism and wouldn't hesitate to loan whatever support he felt was necessary to effect another mass-casualty attack against the US. I believe we're going to have to kill him to rid ourselves of him. It's sad that alot of Iraqis will pay a horrible price, but I really believe that if we don't do this, we'll regret it within a decade.
What kills me is the UN agenda - France and Russia have signed deal with Iraq, to lease *huge* oilfields if and when the UN sanctions are lifted. It's obvious to anyone who looks deeper than their "moral convictions" that they are in it for the oil. Blix baffles me, too - omitting the ROVs found from his report because he doesn't want to start a war? Things like this are why the UN is viewed as a worthless entity that lacks teeth and resolve. I'm having trouble figuring out why the US is the bad guy here.
Anyhow, whatever happens, I hope Iraq and other nations that sponsor terrorism learn that it's easier attack Europe rather than the US, because we'll come after them and Europeans lack the collective will to fight.
Yes, I'm for it. I wish we'd done it sooner (even though there would have been hell to pay). I feel like alot of the motive for anti-american backlash is jealousy and greed. We should not back off just because France and Russia (who are acting in their own best interests) want us to.
I just wish Bush would do a better job of what Churchill did this morning on the Today show - he said flatly that the French and Russians are dealing with Iraq for oil now, will in the future and *that* is the reason they don't want a fight - it has nothing to do with high-minded principles - it's about oil for them and who cares about the stability of the middle east, terrorism, the Iraqi people, etc. Even the democratic love child Katie Couric knew better than to argue the point.
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
War or no War?
