There is no war

[Gloer]

There is no war yet.

[Ciryaher]

This poll doesn't quite make sense...

The thread title isn't really what the poll is about, and the poll's options don't answer the question that you asked.

[Parrot]

Also, there are no options dealing with WoMD, links to terrorism, or U.N. resolutions. Maybe you don't buy these reasons but they are out there and demand consideration if you hope to elicit any real discussion on the matter - which maybe you don't.

[Gloer]

There are weapons of mass destruction everywhere: in Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia and Israel for instance.

The difference is that all above mentioned nations have goernments that US govenrment feels they can negotiate with.

Saddam Hussein and his unreliable goernment is the problem. That he has no ABC weaponry is a good thing. That he can get them is bad. And as a head of an oil nation he can always get them.

Now I do not think it is neccessary to show any terrorist contacts or conspiraies by Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a known enemy of USA. After 9/11 attack Iraq must be seen as a formidable threat to USA. With Iraq resourses Saddam could easily repeat the 9/11 attack if Afghanistan and Osama´s back account was enough for Al-Quaida.

To rephrase in fundamental Republican rhetorics:
Gun's don't kill. People do.

[Rogue666666]

This same discussion is already bieng carried out on other threads all over the guild of politics, and I'm tired of stating my opinions over and over in three or four different threads.

Maybe you should just find one of those discussions and join in their, hmm?

[Emowyn]

Here's somthing for you.

Bush: I want to go to war in Iraq for the reason that they're hiding Nucular weapons of mass destruction. I shall send in Weapon inspectors to find these weapons.

Enter Weapon inspectors

WI: We have found no weapons of mass destructon in our search of Iraq.

Bush: Ah ha! You can't find them which is PROOF they're hiding them!

[Rogue666666]

LOL. Thats not only ridiculuos, but idiotic.

The U.N sends in weapon inspectors.

They know of thousands of tons of chemical warheads that exist, but amazingly, over ten years no sign of them anywhere and Iraq denies their existence.

Weapon inspectors find evidence of a MASSIVE nuclear research program.

AND, if you watched Collin Powells speach just thirty minutes ago, you will realize that the United States has solid proof from both sattelite, and first person sources that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

The only question remaining is who is going to help us disarm Iraq and who isn't. The inspectors can't disarm Iraq. especially because Saddam Hussein has been hampering the inspectors all along. Nothing short of a military invasion is going to stop him from developing nuclear weapons or using his already existing chemical and biological weapons.

There, now please move this discussion somewhere its already taking place.

[Gloer]

...did you already vote?

I agree no-one really wants to repeat all the debate which is going on elsewhere.
So don't discuss, the options are above. Just vote so we get some wonderful qantitative data! :D

[Emowyn]

Lighten up alittle. If there is going to be a war, which I surely doubt, the worst thing you could do is panic or get worked up about it. Atleast if we still have some sort of humor we won't all become walking zombies in fear of leaving our own beds let alone our homes....

[Anamatar IV]

Originally posted by Gloer
There are weapons of mass destruction everywhere: in Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia and Israel for instance.

The difference is that all above mentioned nations have goernments that US govenrment feels they can negotiate with.



Americans trust that these countries are capable of holding these weapons. We know that these countries recognize the vast power in their hands. Israel has been fighting Palestine for years and not once dropped a nuke. That's SOME self control to say the least.

But Iraq is neither a U.N. recognized Nucleur state nor worthy of America's trust of holding these weapons.


There is no reason for us in America of Europe to worry about war. But, then again, Iraq, Iran, and Israel should be worried. I am constantly laughing about some things Saddam Hussein is saying:

If America attacks us we will bomb Israel with our weapons of mass destruction...

*later when UN inspectors come*

We don't have any weapons of mass destruction!

:D

[Ithrynluin]

Why should there be a war in Iraq? I voted for the third option.

I hope that is U.S.A.'s primary goal, though I'm not quite sure what it's secondary goals are...In fact, I'm somewhat suspicious.

[tom_bombadil]

I voted for the oil option but i belive there is another reason I think george w bushe junior is finishing of his fathers work. Mr bush senior probably regrets not going all the ay so he is using his son to do it for him

[Bombadillo]

ehm... if I remember correctly north korea has threatened to use his nuclier weapons if the US di'n't help them financially... and now they are doing just that...
a year earlier, just after 09/11 bush summed north korea as on of the main threats to the US, and now there gining them money, why doesnt that makes sence to me, thinking of a war in iraq?

[Rogue666666]

What? I'm confused. Giving who money? You mean North Korea? Don't be ridiculuos. We may have sent them aid in the past, but we are not funding them.

We have continually stated how we whish to remain at peace with North Korea, even if their leader is trying to stir up trouble. Maybe we should try deailng with one problem at a time.