CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Survey - Iraq War
 
tumeric Views: 1,363
Published: 16 years ago
 
This is a reply to # 706,895

Re: Survey - Iraq War


The point was that no Iraqis have landed on our shore, or presented any threat to us. They were not involved in 9/11. They had no weapons of mass destruction, and even if they did, how would that present a threat to us? Let's say that Iraq (or more likely, Iran) had nuclear weapons and the capability of delivering a nuclear warhead to our shores. Yes, it would be catastrophic, making 9/11 look like an IED blowing up a humvee. But what would our response be? We would obliterate Iraq with our own nuclear arsenal. We would leave that country totally uninhabitable for generations to come. Don't you think any country considering a nuclear strike on our country doesn't know this? The real danger is from small groups of terrorists, not affiliated with any particular country, smuggling in a nuclear device to our country because of the almost non-existent security at our ports. Instead of doing something about that problem, President Bush is more interested in invading other countries which are not involved in Terrorism and wiretapping Americans illegally, for god only knows what purpose. If it was terrorists he was after, he could have done the wiretapping, then asked the FISA court for a warrant after the fact. Instead, he chose to break the law.

You say, "I think George Bush honestly believed that he was securing the long-term safety of our country by ridding Saddam Hussein from power." Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I personally believe that he used 9/11 as an excuse to finish off what he thought his father had left unfinished, so he could one-up his dad. Neither my opinion nor yours is provable, since we can't read George Bush's mind, so neither one is really relevant.

Then you say, "But Bush simply felt that the Middle East's oil supply was in too big of jeapardy with Hussein in the region. And had the world's oil supply been hijacked, everyone world-wide would have been screwed." Interesting that the administration has constantly denied that invading Iraq had anything to do with oil. You sound more like Michael Moore than a conservative. And Hussein was trying to hijack all of the middle east's oil? Interesting, since Iraq itself is sitting on top of one the major oil reservoirs in the world. What would he have done, invade Saudi Arabia (our staunch ally and home of Osama Bin Laden and the extremist Wahabbist sect of Islam)? After he had already invaded Kuwait and got his ass kicked for his trouble? Please.

The point you have completely missed is that our armed forces, in addition losing 2,500 of our own, have been directly responsible for the deaths of more Iraqis than Saddam could ever have dreamed of, many of them women and children. Yes, Iraqi children. I know that for some anti-choice people a developing fetus is more important than a living Iraqi child, but clearly you must see the dilemma there. If abortion is bad, then killing innocent children in an unnecessary, unwinnable war must be even worse. Where is the outcry from the "pro-life" contingent denouncing this horror?
 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2022  curezone.com

1.593 sec, (2)