Invading Iraq is the only responsible thing to do.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Thread for pro-War Arguments
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by David Floyd
No, I can say Saddam is no threat by looking at facts. Saddam has no missiles that can reach the United States. I can also use logic. It makes no logical, rational sense for Saddam to attack the US in the absence of US provocation.
Suppose you put say, a 80 foot boat in NY harbor and let off a Dirty bomb, would that be a threat?
Under the definition you gave, no it wouldn't.
Your not safe Floyd, sticking your head in the sand won't work.
I suppose on that level I DO believe Saddam, in that he is implying that in the absence of US provocation he is no threat. But that's pretty much a self-evident statement in this case.I believe Saddam because his position is backed up by logic and reason...David Floyd
i'm an ignorant greek...MarkG
Comment
-
Saddam does have missiles that can reach our allies.“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Comment
-
Sorry about the confussion David, as I said I am ignorant.
Yet, I find when you start to bomb the crap out of another country, then, it is technically a war. Either way the old issues still remain, and he has violated terms that he agreed upon. I don't know about you but I didn't see him crossing his fingers, not take backs.
Comment
-
Suppose you put say, a 80 foot boat in NY harbor and let off a Dirty bomb, would that be a threat?
Under the definition you gave, no it wouldn't.
Like I said, it's whom you believe, and now you see it.
DaShi,
Saddam does have missiles that can reach our allies.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaShi
Saddam does have missiles that can reach our allies.
Iraq poses less of a threat to us today than N. Korea does, IMO. Saddam's capacity to wage war was decimated ten years ago and has not recovered by any significant measure.Tutto nel mondo è burla
Comment
-
Yet, I find when you start to bomb the crap out of another country, then, it is technically a war. Either way the old issues still remain, and he has violated terms that he agreed upon.
Further, even if a war were fought, I fail to see how any peace treaty or cease fire based upon anything other than peace amongst equals is moral.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Floyd
So does Russia.“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Floyd
Wrong-o.
We were never even AT war, as Congress never declared war. Bush basically usurped the exclusive powers of Congress in order to go kill people.
But there was never any war.
Neither did Bush usurp the powers of Congress. That isn't even close to true, David. Bush was required to and did get funding for military actions up to an including invading Iraq. That Congress did not have the cajones to call it a declaration of war does not change the fact that it was a war and Congress chose to fund it.
Comment
-
I'll take Strawmen for $100 Alex.
Iraq has missiles that can reach our allies. But who are these allies?
Turkey, who killed more Kurds than Iraq?
Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian dictatorship?
Israel, a "democracy" with racist immigration laws that goes around killing civilians in response to terrorism?
Pardon me if I don't give a ****.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
We have to invade because the Kurds haven't been ****ed over enough these past decades, so we ought to **** 'em over some more."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Comment
-
Lot of people died for there not being a war. Of course it was a war. It simply wasn't a declared war.
Neither did Bush usurp the powers of Congress. That isn't even close to true, David. Bush was required to and did get funding for military actions up to an including invading Iraq. That Congress did not have the cajones to call it a declaration of war does not change the fact that it was a war and Congress chose to fund it.
If they choose to fund a military action without declaring war, then it seems to me that they are simply funding what boils down to murder, based on the argument that killing an enemy combatant in war is not murder, killing a foreign soldier without a declared war is murder.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
You have some valid points there Floyd.
"Good, bad, what does it matter? I'm the one with the gun."
Funny, huh?
That is exactly what Saddam did to Kuwait, and what sucks is that there is always a bigger fish (should that be in quotes too?).
Do we need to wait for Saddam to repeat his actions, only this time with bigger missles then scuds?
Do you honestly think that he is just going to sit idle? He is a calous, greedy, man... (In some sense he should just defect to America, he would have better luck)
When evil rears it's ugly head one must leash it. And if it breaks leash what do you do? Nothing? Laugh? What? I would releash it, and I would shorten the chain.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Floyd
Fine. But an undeclared war is not a legal war.
Wrong. Only Congress can declare war. They can't pass this power off to any other branch of the government - it is an exclusive power of Congress. They can pass a Constitutional amendment to change this, but that was not done.
If they choose to fund a military action without declaring war, then it seems to me that they are simply funding what boils down to murder, based on the argument that killing an enemy combatant in war is not murder, killing a foreign soldier without a declared war is murder.
Now IF the Constitution required a two thirds majority to declare war you would have a point.
Comment
-
That is exactly what Saddam did to Kuwait, and what sucks is that there is always a bigger fish (should that be in quotes too?).
1)Kuwait very possibly WAS actually stealing Iraqi oil.
2)We did the same thing to Iraq
Do you honestly think that he is just going to sit idle? He is a calous, greedy, man... (In some sense he should just defect to America, he would have better luck)
When evil rears it's ugly head one must leash it. And if it breaks leash what do you do? Nothing? Laugh? What? I would releash it, and I would shorten the chain.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
Comment
Comment