That analogy just doesn't map to the war at hand.
The quantities are just too large.
No they shouldn't be ignored.
But that's what you're doing too. You're ignoring any opinions they might have.
Printable View
That analogy just doesn't map to the war at hand.
The quantities are just too large.
No they shouldn't be ignored.
But that's what you're doing too. You're ignoring any opinions they might have.
By ignoring people like that we become as bad as the people that do it. We have a right to stand up for one another (Concept called alliances) therefore if we genuinly are attacking for the rights of the Iraq people to be free then what right do you have to stop us??? ;) ;) ;)
Saddam is considered a threat by many and even more want to see him gone. The difference between us and you is that we have a shorter temper!!! Doesnt mean we a wrong because we want to kill a murdered and a threat to the world.
Yes he may never strike but i dont want to sit here 10 years from now watching my telly (3d maybe :D :D ) as nuclear explosions destroy the world. No longer can we wait for people to start a war and then retaliate because weapons of today can wipe us out if we are not quick enough to stop them!!! :) :)
There are far more countries in the world that really don't like the US and who already have, or could gain posession of, nuclear weapons or otherwise.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Yes he may never strike but i dont want to sit here 10 years from now watching my telly (3d maybe :D :D ) as nuclear explosions destroy the world. No longer can we wait for people to start a war and then retaliate because weapons of today can wipe us out if we are not quick enough to stop them!!! :) :)
A pre-emptive strike should only be used when there is proof enough that an attack is imminent.
Not because someone could in theory do something in the future.
That kind of thinking is exactly the reason how Hitler was allowed to come to power and kill millions. Why not learn from History instead of ignoring it.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
There are far more countries in the world that really don't like the US and who already have, or could gain posession of, nuclear weapons or otherwise.
A pre-emptive strike should only be used when there is proof enough that an attack is imminent.
Not because someone could in theory do something in the future.
X
I agree that Saddam is the goal. But he is not the ONLY goal, and most probably he is just ONE OF the goals.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Saddam is the goal HB no matter what you have made up :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.