Thread for pro-War Arguments

[The Vagabond]

If so, I find your stance a little bit idealistic, Chris. Do you realistically believe that, in the present circumstances, Bush would look as a hero if he stepped back with the war? He would rather look as a failed politician, who was unable to realize his goals.

[Chris 62]

Not at all, if you really listen to what he says, not what people say he says.

He has said "Saddam must disarm or he will be forced too", he said this exact line not two days ago.

If he was the deciever so many say, he need only make a secret deal with Saddam, go through some show inspections, and be hailed as a world hero.

He wouldn't look like a failed politician at all, on the contray, he would be hailed as a forceful "gets things done" leader, and Saddam's rep would also rise as he "Sees the light", and the US would rehabilitate his rep.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Chris 62
If he was the deciever so many say, ...

I never said he's a deceiver. On the contrary, it's quite understandable that he can't openly say that oil is the main goal. Instead, he has to publicly cling to secondary goals (which are also legitimate and true, but nonetheless secondary). I wouldn't blame him for that.

[Chris 62]

Let's hope the inspectors can do their work, and we will go from there.

[The Vagabond]

Anyway, it's understandable that Bush can't name the main goal openly. However, the fact that the supposedly intelligent Apolytoners fail to differentiate between the primary and the secondary goals makes me sick.

[Chris 62]

Yes, the silly talk of oil as the motivation is juvinile, I quite agree.

[orange]

Chris - I disagree that Afghanistan was a precision strike. We had many **** ups.

I also feel that, even if Bush is following US and International Law (the latter of which I don't agree with) his reasoning for invading Iraq is WRONG.

Just becuase it's legal doesn't make it right.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Yes, the silly talk of oil as the motivation is juvinile, I quite agree.

The banality of this assumption makes it no less true.

[David Floyd]

Chris, I love how your sig quotes me way out of context

[The Vagabond]

Moral and legal arguments aside, this war would clearly be beneficial for America, and time is ripe now. If I were an American, I guess I would be leaning towards supporting the war. Unfortunately, it is not good for Russia. I just hope a preliminary agreement is worked out that would minimize Russia's losses.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chris, I love how your sig quotes me way out of context

I'm sure Sloww felt the same way for a long time about someone doing that.

I'll change it in a few days, you have to admit it's funny as hell!

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Moral and legal arguments aside, this war would clearly be beneficial for America, and time is ripe now. If I were an American, I guess I would be leaning towards supporting the war. Unfortunately, it is not good for Russia. I just hope a preliminary agreement is worked out that would minimize Russia's losses.

Da uzh konechno. Naebut v ocherednoy raz. Yankam nelzya verit.
Hi,

[Serb]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I'll change it in a few days, you have to admit it's funny as hell!

Esp. first

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Serb
Da uzh konechno. Naebut v ocherednoy raz. Yankam nelzya verit.
Hi,

Hi Serb Nado luchshe dogovarivat'sya. Nash nyneshniy president ne takoy oluh, kak predydushiye.

Pravda, esli horosho podumat', vse ravno ved' na*but...

[1]

Of course Afghanistan was a precision strike. It very nearsighted to say otherwise. Just because not EVERY SINGLE BOMB didn't hit RIGHT EXACTLY on target.... all of a sudden it constitutes saying the war as a whole wasn't effective in targeting military targets and avoiding civilian ones? The US has spent billions on developing guided weapons for just that purpose. Compared to how bombing was done in WW2, or Vietnam.... I'd say our bombs are pretty damn precise. Allot of effort was put into focusing our firepower on military targets, however from how people react to purely UNINTENTIONAL civilian area being hit, it seems they obviously can't put things in the bigger scheme. We COULD have carpet bombed all of Afghanistan, but we didn't. The fact that we are almost exclusively the only nation that could have pulled off such an effective ratio of military targets to civilian areas hit, in the entire world, I find it amazing people still find room to complain about it, as if such acts were almost done on purpose. Everyone goes out protesting when the US precision bombs a very logical threat, but those same people aren't out protesting truly wrong wars that most aren't even aware are even happening at this moment. Look at Africa, almost every nation has been effected by either civil war, or war in neighboring countries. They don't have the technology to use laser guided bombs (as far as I know). Thousands of civilians die from starvation from cut supplies, or from just random firings into cities from who ever the "rebels" are at the time. Yet....were are the protests??? Last time I heard of a protest voicing the evils of country X against country Y in any other situation than the US being county X....is never. Its being completely bias, and in some ways selfish to their own emotions. Even though such protests most certainly do exist... my point is, is that those ones are never as loud, or as big, as the ones protesting the United States. Some say its because they believe the US is inherently evil... I just call it penis envy. Nuff said.