To: one_particular_harbour
Isn't it interesting that this attitude of "wait" can be seriously debated while at this very moment we are doing our best to anticipate what our enemies, seen and unseen, are plotting against us this week?
I'm not foolish enough to not understand that there are negatives to going into Iraq, but the alternatives seem to be worse and it seems a choice has to be made.
Not to be trite, but "BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY".
At this point, it is hardly arguable that it's a matter of when, not if, Hussein has the capability of delivering nuclear disaster upon us. It's a chance not worth taking, IMO.
To: Southflanknorthpawsis
"Better safe than sorry." Well, I suppose this could, and has, been used to justify any violation of constitutional rights. Heck, why not create an even safer society and officially abolish this 213 year old document with its antiquated restrictions and unrealistic rules.
To: Southflanknorthpawsis
Isn't it interesting that this attitude of "wait" can be seriously debated while at this very moment we are doing our best to anticipate what our enemies, seen and unseen, are plotting against us this week? I'm not foolish enough to not understand that there are negatives to going into Iraq, but the alternatives seem to be worse and it seems a choice has to be made.
Not to be trite, but "BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY".
At this point, it is hardly arguable that it's a matter of when, not if, Hussein has the capability of delivering nuclear disaster upon us. It's a chance not worth taking, IMO.
Well said.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson