Are You In Support Of Starting A War In Iraq ?

by minimus 111 Replies latest jw friends

  • Sara Annie
    Sara Annie

    Oh puh-leeze.

    If I read one more post by one more simpering fellow American playing the "America and it's citizens are so self-centered and egotistical/other countries have worth too/not everyone wants a democratic society/the US needs to stop bullying everyone/America's original ideals are worthless today/blah blah blah blah blah" I swear to God I'm going to take a hostage.

    But you know what? I won't. Because I live in a country where each citizen has the right to express their disillusionment and anger about the state of the nation they live in without fear that they will be harmed for doing so. And while some would encourage you to pack your complaining, dissatisfied, whining asses up and relocate them to one of those countries where you contend that human rights are simply "different" than the American standard, I actually urge you to do just the opposite. Stay, please, and continue to spout out your rhetoric. The fact that you can do so is one of the things that continues to make the USA a pretty damn fine place to live. In this country, the phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" actually means something.

    Do I want a war? Who the hell wants a war? I don't. It makes my chest hurt, it causes that horrible hollow feeling of dread in the pit of my stomach that I can't make go away. I don't like the thought of sending our sons/brothers/husbands/fathers into battle for something that I'm not sure is the imminent threat that it is being touted as. But should it happen, I will support the men and women of our military in their endeavor, and do my best, as an American, to support my country and it's efforts. And if I feel compelled to speak out in opposition, I will do that too, with the full knowledge that I am free to do so.

    Sappy and patriotic? Yep. Proud to be so? Damn straight.

  • amac
    amac

    In this country, the phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" actually means something.
    So have you enlisted yet?

  • Xander
    Xander

    I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it

    have you enlisted yet

    Indeed.

    Don't you, in fact, mean "I may not agree with what you say, but THIS GUY OVER HERE will fight to the death for your right to say it, while I just sit on my ass and whine about people who can look at humanity as a whole instead of seeing the US as the center of the world, like I do." And then, probably throw a "God bless the USA" or "Go forth christian soldiers! Slaughter those Muslim dogs!" in there somewhere?

    Edited by - Xander on 24 January 2003 18:0:16

  • Crazy151drinker
    Crazy151drinker

    Amec,

    Yes.

    Oh here is a very interesting (and very detailed) link to the basic strategy of the U.S. Nuclear policy and the various effects to different Soviet Targets. Very interesting stuff. Also has stuff like casuality estimates in India, Pakistan, and all over Russia. Very cool Nuclear Stuff. Time to build a shelter!

    http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/index.asp

  • Sara Annie
    Sara Annie
    So have you enlisted yet?

    Don't you, in fact, mean "I may not agree with what you say, but THIS GUY OVER HERE will fight to the death for your right to say it, while I just sit on my ass and whine about people who can look at humanity as a whole instead of seeing the US as the center of the world, like I do." And then, probably throw a "God bless the USA" or "Go forth christian soldiers! Slaughter those Muslim dogs!" in there somewhere?

    As a 32 year old woman with two children, I hardly qualify to enlist. My husband, however, is a Gulf War veteran and there is every chance that he will be called upon to serve again. My father is a Viet Nam veteran who lost a brother and countless friends in that conflict. In forming your glib responses, please do not assume that I am ignorant of the personal sacrifices that accompany war. I am more than aware of who will be fighting this war. I do not invite it, I do not welcome it, and I certainly do not want it. If it comes, however, you can be certain that I will not be "sitting on my ass and whining" about it.

    Edited by - Sara Annie on 24 January 2003 18:19:50

  • Sara Annie
    Sara Annie

    Edited because I somehow accidentally posted the above twice... Sorry!

    (Jeesh, I know I was being emphatic, but that was just overkill!)

    Edited by - Sara Annie on 24 January 2003 18:18:5

  • Shakita
    Shakita

    Give the inspectors a few more weeks. Iraq has had 12 years, I don't think 2 or 3 more weeks will make any difference except to prove that the inspectors will not find the smoking gun they want. The smoking gun has had 4 years to be hidden. The key is now with the Iraqi scientists. Get them without the minders present, promise them safe passage along with their families to freedom, and they will talk. They are now too afraid to speak to the "spies" of the United States. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

    Saddam has chemical weapons. He had them then, he has them now. And, lots. If he isn't disarmed now, our children will pay the price in the future.

    Experts: Iraq has tons of chemical weapons

    WASHINGTON (CNN) --As some in the Bush administration press the case for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, weapons experts say there is mounting evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has amassed large stocks of chemical and biological weapons he is hiding from a possible U.S. military attack.

    "Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers," said Jon Wolfsthal, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.

    The Iraqis also have biological weapons, according to U.S. officials. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said recently that Iraq has mobile biological weapons laboratories, which would be nearly impossible for U.S. forces to target.

    "The concern is they either have on hand -- or could quickly re-create the capability to produce -- vast amounts of anthrax, tons of material, compared with the several grams of material that literally shut down the U.S. postal system last year," said Wolfsthal, the deputy director of Carnegie's Non-Proliferation Project, which does research and analysis on the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

    "This is something that could kill thousands upon thousands of people, depending on the means of distribution."

    While President Bush has said he hasn't made up his mind on what to do about Iraq's growing arsenal, it appears that two members of his administration have made up theirs.

    Vice President Dick Cheney has pushed for a pre-emptive strike, warning that the "risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action." Secretary of State Colin Powell has urged that U.N. weapons inspectors be given one last chance before an attack is launched. (Full story)

    White House press secretary Ari Fleischer downplayed reports of any rift in the administration, telling told reporters Monday that "there is no difference in position between Cheney, Powell and President Bush." (Full story)

    Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said over the weekend the Bush administration is wrong about Iraq's weapons capabilities.

    "They are telling wrongly the American public opinion and the world that Iraq is reproducing weapons of mass destruction," he told CNN's "Late Edition."

    "That's not true. We are ready to prove it. We are ready to prove it by technical and viable means." (Full story)

    U.N. arms inspectors were in Iraq more than seven years. Complaining that Iraq was uncooperative, they left in December 1998 on the eve of a U.S.-British bombing raid.

    Without certification by the inspectors that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, the United Nations will not lift economic sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

    Iraq has met three times this year with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan but failed to arrange for the return of weapons inspectors.

    The United States and the United Nations argued the inspectors must have unfettered access to be effective. But the White House dismissed any possibility of that actually happening.

    "Iraq changes positions more often that Saddam Hussein changes bunkers," Fleischer said.

    Sources close to Annan told CNN that Aziz and Annan plan to meet Tuesday, and one topic could be the inspections.

    But in an interview Sunday with CNN, Aziz said return of the inspectors would be pointless.

    "It's a non-starter because it's not going to bring about a conclusion to the controversy," he said.

    Iraq told the United Nations in 1995 it had produced 30,000 liters of biological agents, including anthrax and other toxins it could put on missiles.

    U.N. officials say the actual amount may be three or four times greater.

    As Bush mulls how to go about accomplishing his stated goal of a regime change in Iraq, Wolfsthal said the Iraqis are doing everything they can to hide their assets from a possible attack.

    "We know Iraq has already begun moving troops around. We know they've begun to hide valuable assets underground," he said.

    "They can read the writing on the wall. They know that President Bush and his administration are out to get him and he is trying to protect as much as he can as quickly as he can."

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome

    shakita

    as i've said before on another thread, all the US and Britain has to do is look at their recepits and sales ledger, to see what Saddam has got.

    who needs weapons inpectors? anyway i'm sure they'll find something, there's a war to get on with!

  • Perry
    Perry

    Pleasuredome said:

    but i doubt the US would get much support unless nato was mobilized.

    The news stated today that 15 of the 19 NATO members are already on board.

  • minimus
    minimus

    This is the first time in many years that I see people that are scared to death over a war. "Faint out of fear" seems fitting.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit