Yesterday at 11:08 PM Smilin said this in Post #18
We've declared war on terrorism. Would casualties of a war with rogue Islamic militant groups in Afghanistan that could have prevented 9-11 be needless? I think not.
We were quite justified in going to war in Afghanistan, but if you remember, we did not go in on 9/12. First, we presented the evidence to the world that the Al Qaeda were our enemies. Then, we issued an ultimatum that the Taliban cease their support for our
known enemies and turn them over.
Only after they failed to do so did we strike.
Iraq's history on chemical/biological weapons speeks for itself. A war to prevent such weapons falling into the hands of those who would detonate such a device in one of our cities would not be needless.
Do you have a good reason to believe that Iraq is planning on giving chemical or biological agents to terrorists? Planning to launch them against us? If they are planning to use them or turn them over to our enemies, then I am
absolutely in support of taking them out before it happens.
Are we to sit and wait to be attacked again? Or should we be proactive and take the offense.
I say we should take the offense against our known enemies - people we know are planning to bring harm to us. I say we should be proactive in discovering who these people are and bringing our case against them to the world.
History has taught us you CAN'T win a defensive war...i.e. Vietnam, the Civil War...
I don't know what you mean by "defensive war". We were attacked first by the south in the Civil War, yet we won that war. We were attacked first in WWII, and we won that war. We were attacked first by the Al Qaeda, but we won in Afghanistan. Yes, if you know who is planning to strike you, a pre-emptive strike saves civilians and soldiers, and is justified. But you cannot attack every one who doesn't like you just in case they might be planning to strike you. If you do that, you eventually have to strike everyone, because the more you strike without provocation, the more people are not going to like you.
We have declared war on terrorism. The Iraqi government is a terrorist regime that seeks to do us harm.
Do you have evidence that Iraq is planning to strike us? Or do you just think that because they do not like us then they must be planning a strike? If Bush has such evidence, I certainly hope he will reveal it, and the sooner the better. If it is too sensitive to reveal now, then it's very important that he reveal it after the war.
They have the power to prevent war. The ball is in their court.
Without the anti-war protesters here and around the world, and without France and Germany dragging their feet, we most likely would have already been to Iraq. I don't think Bush will willingly allow
anyone to prevent war in this case. Now if the world has tied Bush's hands to the extent that Saddam
does have the power to prevent war, then I hope that he will have the intelligence to do so.
North Korea... you're next.
Why next, and not first? When Iran? When Pakistan? When Saudi Arabia?
