21 Dec 05
I would say the only thing is if the citizens of your country were under threat from another country. But using this logic iraq could of declared war on america when it knew america was planning to attack it. People would of complained this was unfair reason for starting a war and be very angry at iraq. America used the reason that iraq has chemical, bio, nuclear wepons but america its self has these wapons and if a country declared war on america for this reason it would seem a terrible unfair reason. What gives a govenment the right to control other countrys owning something identical to something the govenment itself has?
Also for what reasons do people think its ok to go to war?
If a country netral to america conducted the same treatment of prisoners that america has on citizens would america ignore it?attack?ask nicely?demand release?
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Uh oh, are you declaring war on your neighbor Sas?
Mmm, if you're talking me specifically, there's one turd I have in mind, but if you're speaking generally, it doesn't matter, as long as you're really, really pissed off, like I am, then you can pick anybody, or, in the case of being nationally pissed off, you can pick a country.
But you have to be really, really pissed off first.
21 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Will EverittPresident Bush, upon incorrect? advise from his security council, concluded that Iraq had WMD, and under a despot such as Saddam, would either use them on Israel, a neighboring adversary (Kurdish state), or on the U.S. itself by way of Al-Qaeda. The U.S. used the UN counsel to resolve the issue, but unless one lives on Mars, one should know that the U.N. is as useless as used toiletpaper. Since 1991, Iraq has flaunted every U.N. mandate that, had it followed, would have prevented 100,000s of Iraqi deaths from lack of neccesities brought about by the U.N. sanctions. If Saddam had used the oil profits allowed him under the mandates to buy food, medicine, etc. for his people instead of gold-plated crappers, needless deaths of Iraqi innocents, including children, could have been prevented. What Saddam did was not much diferent than what Hitler did in the 20s and 30s leading up to WW2. Underneath this "nose-thumbing" at the U.N., "allies" on the "war on terror, such as France, Germany, and Russia were "wheeling and dealing" with Saddam, therefore were unwilling to be partners in the "coalition of the willing" to finally put a stop to a despot and maybe put a crippling dent in the Al-Qeada network that theoretically could have gotten WsMD from Saddam, who hated the U.S. in particular, and the West in general. Should we have gone to war in Iraq? The verdict is still out.
I would say the only thing is if the citizens of your country were under threat from another country. But using this logic iraq could of declared war on america when it knew america was planning to attack it. People would of complained this was unfair reason for starting a war and be very angry at iraq. America used the reason that iraq has chemical, bi ...[text shortened]... prisoners that america has on citizens would america ignore it?attack?ask nicely?demand release?
When Al-Qaeda flew planes into the WTC buildings, killing 3,000 American citizens, "war" was declared against America whether you look at it that way or not, but Pres. Bush saw it as war, and acted decisively. You mentioned WMD. Yes, America has them as does France, Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, and possibly Iran. However, with the exceptions of N. Korea and Iran, the other countries mentioned would use them only as a last resort.
You mention the treatment of prisoners by America without mentioning the beheadings, the tortures, the burning and hanging of the "crispy-critter" bodies of contractors from the bridges, the suicide bombings by Islamofascistas on their own women and children. This war on terror is nothing short of a covert WW3, whether you or I like to call it that or not. This is a war of ideologies; there are no "gentlemanly" truces called between opponents as so often was the case on the western fronts of both WWI and WWII. These people (Islamofascists) will stop at nothing short of eviscerating your sister, mother, and child after beheading them. Getting information from them to prevent a nuclear device from detonating in London, Paris, Moscow, or New York by ripping their toenails out is perfectly alright by me. This information about torturing prisoners by the U.S., whether true or not, is something the media shouldn't even be reporting about because the media, even U.S. media, tends to be biased.
How do you think Israel, discounting U.S. aid, has been able to survive for almost 60 years in the middle of an Arab camp armed to the teeth? Chutzpah, that's how. The Israelis will stop at nothing to ensure their survival, and the sooner the "free world" realizes that it needs to do the same, the faster this "war on terror" will end with the destruction of this medusa called Al-Qaeda. Then, and only then, can Islam, Christian, Jewish, and other faiths come to an understanding that one doesn't have to shed blood in order to practice his/her faith.
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicSo, you're sure it was Al qaeda then?
President Bush, upon incorrect? advise from his security council, concluded that Iraq had WMD, and under a despot such as Saddam, would either use them on Israel, a neighboring adversary (Kurdish state), or on the U.S. itself by way of Al-Qaeda. The U.S. used the UN counsel to resolve the issue, but unless one lives on Mars, one should know that the ...[text shortened]... ome to an understanding that one doesn't have to shed blood in order to practice his/her faith.
