Why War with Iraq? Or why against?

My Squash ^ | 9/18/2002 | Burkeman1

[Burkeman1]

Why do you think we should go to war against Iraq? Or why are you against such a war?

Take as much space as you need. But post a concise, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or essay and do not link to other sites.

This about why Freepers want war or oppose war.

And no personnal attacks. Everyone on this site is an American and loves this country.

[MJY1288]

You first :-)

[Mr. Mojo]

concise

WMD in the hands of a madman. ...Let's freakin' roll.

[Burkeman1]

Fair enough.

I oppose this war for many reasons but chief among them is that is that Iraq is less responsible for 9/11 than many of the factions and cabals that control the governments of our so called "allies" in that region.

In short, I see the war call against Iraq to be a cop out. I see it as using the dead of 9/11 for foggey bottum reasons.

[Hunble]

R E V E N G E

Second reason is rather simple. If we do not win this war, every Jew in Israel will be murdered.

[Rokke]

After we bury Saddam we will have thousands of square miles of good beach sand in which we can drop all the Clymers who said they would leave the country if Bush was elected. Bab's and Baldwin can preach politics to camel herds.

[Burkeman1]

Kim Il Sung in NOrth Korea? We are helping him to build nuke plants in his country? Isn't he part of the "axis of evil"? Iran is closer to nukes even according to the Weekly Standard? I guess the oil rich Saudis don't have a nuke program either? What about the Syrians? We won't attack Pakistan now because they have nukes. Tell me? If you are a dictator on Earth then what would you want to deflect American attack? Nukes. We are encouraging the acquistion of nukes by our actions.

[onedoug]

Evil must be confronted by Good, and fought. War is awful.
Yet the well catalogued evils of islamo-fascism are worse.
Afghanistan is the first visible phase of this war. Iraq is the second.
Our enemies have the opportunity of democratizing from the third.

[Burkeman1]

Revenge? Has Bush Come on TV and said that Iraq is responsible for 9/11? Don't you think he would if he had proof? Don't you think if a President found out that a nation backed the worst civilian slaughter on our soil ever would come before the nation- and personally assure us that Sadaam did it? He has not to this date. He did not even mention Al Queda in his speech before the UN or 9/11. Revenge has nothing to do with it.

[Hunble]

America is not the one in danger of a nuclear attack from Iraq. Israel is!

America was attacked on 9-11 because of our support of Israel.

This is a morality war that America must win.

[LandofLincoln]

For the same reason that we should have taken out Hitler in 1941. His grand scheme is to wipe out a mass amount of people. The jews will go first, and then any Arabian government that does not fall in line. Then it will be western Europe, and then it will be the USA.

My question is when should we do it? Lest we wait until those French girls in the blue berets are begging for us to help. I say we wait until Saddam has taken out the French, and then we stop him.

I do not think that Saddam has nuclear weapons, but God help us when he does.

[Rokke]

Wait a minute....I remember you. You were the guy who started a thread like this asking everyone to list their favorite movies of all time. Then you proceeded to slam anyone who listed a movie you didn't like. I can see where this thread is going.

[MJY1288]

Personally, I think Saddam Hussain should of been removed from power the first time he violated the cease fire treaty he signed. George W. Bush said early on that Saddam was going to comply with the agreements he signed and the U.N. Resolutions or he would pay a price. Well he had his chances to comply and it's time to make the case for war and remove Saddam Hussain from power and give the Iraqi people a constitution and a bill of rights, like we did Japan and Germany after WWII.

I believe the President has to make the case and present the evidence to the American people before he launches this campaign. I believe he will and I believe after Saddam is removed, Iran will see the a revolution and beg for our help to remove the finatical clerics from power.

From everything I have seen and heard so far, I believe we must remove Saddam Hussain and his entire regime from power by whatever means neccessary. I believe our Commander-in-Chief will make the right decisions

[Mr. Mojo]

What about N. Korea and Iran, you ask?

My answer: Be patient, they're next.

And btw, the Pakistani president isn't a madman (like Saddam). Apples and oranges.

[Burkeman1]

If Isreal- embattled and surrounded by enemies on all sides thought that they were going to be attacked or even saw a nuke threat they would have pulverized that threat like they did in Iraq in 81.

[Hunble]

Yup, and that is why America is going to do the hard work.

If Israel is forced to fight, then it will probably go nuclear.

America has the conventional forces to remove this danger, and prevent a release of nuclear weapons.

This is our choice, and so far, the wise one to follow.

[XBob]

911 is not the problem, only a small symptom of the rabid Anti-American hate propaganda that is being allowed by the islamic governments to shift the blame for their people's incompetence and misery from their theocratic dictatorships to western democracies. Their peoples can't argue with their governments because they can't argue against God. So they blame everything on the US, and the hate diatribes are continuous and the litany of hate goes on and on and on.

Iraq is bound to develop/secure weapons of mass destruction which will be able to severely damage the US, and allow the manic islamics to take over the world, which is their goal.

[Burkeman1]

And then what? If we had removed Sadaam in 91? The Shiites would have taken over and be a client state to Iran. The Sunnis and Kurds would fight in the North. We left Sadaam in power because we feared radical Islam from Iran. If we occupy Iraq be prepared for a long occupation and a slow but yearly supply of American dead for years due to terrorism and Guerilla activity.

[AM2000]

I am still undecided. I am inclined to oppose it, not because I love Saddam, but because I am not convinced he had anything to do with 9/11. At this time, we need to be concentrating our energies on al qaeda. That means tightening the screws on the Saudi royals, Musharraf, Mubarak, Yemen.. but not Iraq.

But then there's the WMD issue.. which is what makes this so complicated. Part me of says Bush is making this up, so he can look proactive. Part of me is convinced Saddam really is a threat. Bottom line, I don't know what to think at this point.

[ladyinred]

I agree with the war for the very reason post #4 is opposed to it. I do strongly believe that Iraq was instrumental in the attacks on this nation, and not just in Sept of 2001. There is evidence that they were also involved in the planning and carrying out of OKC bombing, and even possibly other attacks.

I was not for the former Gulf War, but once it started I supported the troops. This time, as I believe Iraq attacked us first, we should roll. We also need to prevent more attacks against us and our allies, and Iraq is more than willing to carry out such attacks.