Why I think War with Iraq Is justifiable
- Thread starter Lyzel
- Start date
Actually, a sizeable portion of that analysis could be verified online if you're not busy, at such places as www.un.org. I looked up some of it (albeit, a small portion) and it's actually there, no secrets involved...
Some of it is conjecture, yes. Some of it is very liberal, but that's reserved for the latter part of the analysis... most of it follows some level of logic. But of course, International Relations and foreign policy has no such proving grounds to test theories, so some of it could be wrong.
Now Lyzel, you need to reread what Mal said. He stated it makes 'some very good points', which it does. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but he makes no reference to it as the Bible.
And, in fairness, you too only posted one article and made it the focus of going to war with Iraq; an irony, really, because one of our allies in the 'war on terrorism' is Pakistan - who own rather OVERTLY a number of weapons, of mass destruction, and are fairly restrictive in the governmental policies
:cough::understatement::cough:
I feel sorry for you.. that you need to search the internet for anything that is negative about the U.S.A . To top that, you would believe it like it's the law. [/b][/quote]
Don't worry, I'll try to find something with no factual basis but plenty of 'humor' just for you.
Just because I believe that everyone should have their freedom, does not mean that I totally agree with the government of the U.S.A. And just because I believe that they should attack Iraq, is MY right to belive. You can disagree with it all you want. You can be close minded all you want, and only see what you want to see, and only believe what you want to believe. Right?
You know, what's strange is, more than half the world agree with the stance of not going to war. With the exception of France (who would veto anything), most can't really find a strong argument that would say we should attack Iraq.
I'm not sure if you read Mal's article, but probably the best insight was in regard to the weapons themselves - if the US knows where they are, how come Bush didn't tell the UN so they could send the inspectors to destroy them? To go for the sake of war? To put our own soldiers at risk for what could be done by 'peaceful' means? Forget the slaughter of the Iraqi people for a second - our troops aren't going to go unscathed. And a sizable number of troops are people who don't bleed red white and blue but need the money to go to college (I should know, I was almost one of them).
Essentially, this creates precedent that will haunt the US for many years. A country can use any information of it's choosing, and if it has the financial means, attack another country and depose of it's leader. That's an extremely dangerous precedent, especially during a time where globalization is almost unavoidable. A person firm in their belief that Mr. Bush is a warmongerer and a threat to the world could now rationally kill him - that's the essential truth.
One could argue that you're the closeminded one, as you tend to address only sentences of long arguments (taking them out of context), and don't address all the arguments except those you can use whatever 'factual evidence' the Bush administration provides against.
