War: For or Against?
 

Just wondering what the populous of this forum feels. I feel like Gallup.

against the war, for the troops.

one question. I see the Iraqi official on TV at a press briefing. Why does he always bring up Israel??? why is there so much animosty against Israel in the middle east? there is always some plot mentioned about how israel and the us will come in and take over the middle east. whatever :rolleyes:

after world war II, the allies came into what is now israel and declared it as such. palesitinians felt they got shafted. instead of coming up with a plan that allows for coexistence, they both decided to be all crazy and wanted everything for themselves exclusively. since we were part of the allies in wwII, we have always supported israel. this is where all the animosity comes from. and now, saddam is saying we are doing it again. we are using force to make room for what they consider a "puppet government." it has already happened in afghanistan (although i think this new puppet gov't is better than what was there with the taliban).

I don't think 99% of the country doesn't know enough about everything to be for or against the war, myself definately included. War is bad, yes, I'm not for losing american lives, and it's hard to call if this will SAVE lives in the long run or not. Whatever happens, happens.

The reason I am for is because of the fact I was taught history all through school, and was always told the reason I was learning it was to not allow history to repeat itself. Therefore, look at WWII, and how long we allowed Hitler (a heartless dictator) have his way and store up weapons, etc. Now look at Saddam (another heartless dictator) trying to do the same. Granted I know Saddam has not started a Holocaust, or anything close to it, but he is building up his weapons. Now look at how many lives were lost due to the US not getting involved in WWII, till very late. Therefore I say, take of the problem before it is out of control and we are losing more innocent lives than necessary.

ok this is kinda a wierd question..well first im against the war, but i am 100% for the troops, if my president, who i did NOT vote for feals the need to risk the lives of the troops, then i totally suport our men and women in the field...anyone who calls our troops baby killers, or feel the need to stay in iraq and be human shields deserve to be dropped out the bottom of a B-2...but anyway heres the quesstion

if we attack iraq, and declare war, and saddam bombs a legitimate target in the US...power plant, oil refinery, military base... then is it terrorism or is it an act of war. i was discussing this with my roomates, and everyone kinda is saying..were going to war the terrorists are coming, but the fact of the amtter is that we are going to war and thus will face some serious consequences at home. In 1941 japan thought we were at war and bombed pearl harbor. when bush declares war, all of our infrastructure is a legitamate target to the country we are at war with. and dont forget that many arab groups..hamas, the palestians, al queda all feal that they have mutual defense pacts with iraq. for the past 2 years, iraq has been giving money to terrorists who martyr themselves for the destruction of isreal...because of this he has gained alot of favor with "terrorist" groups in the middle east, and thus we may see there attacks as well. as i stated before i am against this war, as u can kinda read, bbut i think its important that everyon realizes that by declaring war against iraq, iraq is declaring war against the US, and thus we must all be willing to live at risk...anyway i just wanted to get that out, those whol feel the need to flame can fmlame away...

The Kurdish minority are certainly afraid of that though, he did gas them before after all.

If we declare war on Iraq, and they do likewise, then any "legitimate" (the quotes swing both ways) target they attack in the United States, Great Britain, or any other nation that has declared hostilities against them is a valid military target. They can use almost any method they like. Where it gets iffy is when they use their fabled WMD.

Saddam definately can no longer be in power. If Osama bin Laden screwed up our economy so bad with only 19 men, and four airplanes, then I am sure that Saddam can do even worse, and not only to us, but to the rest of the world. If 9/11 were to happen not in US, but in another country, that could have resulted in disaster of much bigger proportions. The rest of the world should be lucky that we have the resourses and will to protect them from assholes like Saddam. If war is the only way to get him out of Iraq, then be it. Just make it quick!

Yeah, Pakistan (known to support terrorists, concrete connections unlike with Iraq) and North Korea could do far more damage than Iraq. Iran is quite capable of causing a lot of damage too. But we aren't in a rush to disarm them. Means and intent are entirely different things.

And I have no idea where you get that the 9/11 disaster could have been worse in other nations. It was bad enough as it is but most of the loss of life was because of the towers falling. Not too many other nations that have targets that tempting with so many people in such a small area.

Kurdish minority??? If you want to bring that up, TURKEY is the one that has killed the most of them. What has anyone said to Turkey? Nothing!!!! Not a peep from US, Britain, etc.....

Shhhhh! We are talking about Iraq now, no need to muddy the waters with that kind of talk. ;)

Turkey is a friend, as long as they let the troops land and assemble there...

It's neat to see the ratio of for/against to be approximately equal to other major polls, if I had to guess about the slightly lower results for the for, I would say that it is a bias from the Canadians on the forum.

I voted for, so I screwed the bias.

I want that part of the world blown up. They cause too many problems with all their religious beliefe crap and suicide bombings every fucking sunday. It's rediculous.

~A