mjordan2nd said:
dont bring my age into this...if u want to use my age as a factor why r u sitting on ur ass arguing with an "immature 11 yr old". Statistics are in desert storm 150,000 CIVILLIANS were killed by stray bullets, bombs and other ammunition, and predictions for this one are anywhere from 2000-50000.
We don't have proof that he supported osama in 9/11, and why the hell should he cooperate with foreign inspections. And a president isn't just going to be banished from his own country b/c some1 else requests him to leave. Yes the govt. has more evidence but it would be more miniscule very fickle and debatable facts otherwise they would have gone public and there would be more public support for the war. I'm not saying bush isn't fighting for the right reason...ridding the world of terrorism would be great, but how he's going about doing it through war and bringing upon more death isn't the way 2 do it imho. And what about terrorism right here in the states...they aren't doing anything to fight people like mcVeigh. As I said before, bush is doing this so he isn't known as the president who did nothing for his country, it's drastic measures, or so i believe. Also, do you actually believe that getting rid of one person will rid the earth of terrorism, or even bring it down a substantial percentage?
|
50,000 civilian deaths? That's way off base. There are only 200,000 in their military, and most of them are giving up/expected to give up quickly. They soldiers don't want a fight. They want a liberator, which is what we are.
YOU don't have proof that he supported Osama in 9/11. The public knows that he supports his efforts in the middle east. I'm sure there are a few things they know about that they haven't bothered to tell you yet mjord. And no, they are not all "debatable facts" as you put it (btw there is no such thing as a debatable fact). Some of them we need to keep secret so we do not give away an advantage. Many people ridiculed Bush for saying when he was going to attack. If he hadn't, however, we would have lots and lots of people saying that it was without warning. Sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet.
Consider, for one moment, what would happen if Iraq were to suddenly attack the US, or any country for that matter, without warning as they were expected to do. (And NO, do NOT say that isn't possible. It's the EXACT thing that happened in Pearl Harbor. It happened once, and it can happen again.)
1. Saddam has and is willing to use chemical warfare. As presented here, he tested chemical weaponry on 5000 Iranians just before an Iraqi invasion into Iran in 1980. Those people are gone.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1214-01.htm
2. If Saddam tested chemical weaponry on 5000 people in 1980, what do you think he is capable of today, 23 years later? Here's an example for reference, in 1980, America had satelites in space that could photograph anywhere on Earth. We could see the make of car you drive to work. Today, in 2003, from a satelite in space, we can see the Eye of a common house fly. We can tell what color your shoelaces are.
3. If you want to be informed on some of our reasons for war, read this article:
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/ar...30206070955230
4. For an estimate on Iraq's weapon force, they possibly have "20,000 litres of biological warfare agents," and "6,000 chemical warfare bombs." This information is from, as you advised us to watch, the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2590265.stm
"1,000 Tons of Chemical Agent Unaccounted For" Here is a general overview of this problem. Most people requested more time for inspections. The Pope agreed. Powel replied, "The threat of force must remain. We cannot wait for one of these terrible weapons to turn up in our cities."
There was time given for inspection. Iraq was not helpful. Their job was to help inspectors to find whatever they were looking for. Did they help? No. If Iraq didn't have these weapons, they would prove it. Do you think that a country would destroy 20,000 liters of a substance without documenting any proof? That's rediculous.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...4/151151.shtml
Do some research. Find out what Iraq is capable of. If there were to attack the US, there would be quite a few more deaths than 50,000. We aim to wipe out the military leaders. We do not want to kill soldiers and will accept all surrenders from them. We are actively trying not to kill civilians. However, what did they attack on 9/11? A building VERY populated with civilians. What's to say they wouldn't simply send in five or six thousand chemical warfare bombs and wipe out the entire east coast of America? Nothing is to say that. They have given no proof of not having the weapons, nor have they shown the weapons to the world. If someone has an acceptable reason of having that many chemical weapons, he would announce it to ease the nerves of the world. SADDAM HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON, HE DENIES HE IS IN POSSESSION WITHOUT GIVING PROOF.
The Prime Minister of Britain has stated that the lives protected from this war will outweigh those lost. Yes, it is a horrible connection to have to make, but if you want to compare numbers, let's compare.
2,000 to 50,000 civilians possibly (accidentally) killed in Iraq.
Vs
Oh.. say 140,000,000 civilians possibly (intentionally) killed in America.
Which would you prefer? I'd take my chances in Iraq. Sorry, but other solutions have run out. This is what we are left with.