Message 18661464
Discussing the Iraq situation we came to a mutual conclusion, an attack on Iraq by the US without full support would most likely increase the risk of terrorist attacks on the US exponentially.
...................................................................................................................................................................
If Iraq was loaded full of terrorists, after months and months of talk of war would they be sitting in Iraq waiting for a Tomahawk or whatever to come flying up their ass? No, if it was true, they'd be deployed all over the US and all over the world, waiting for instructions to strike.
Isn't that a bit inconsistent? First we're going to get hit with terrorists, then Iraq doesn't have any.
I think letting the UN continue to police Iraq is the best solution.
Have you forgotten the ONLY reason those inspectors are back in Iraq is because the US has been beefing up its forces in the area? That it was ONLY because of threat of immoinent US attack the Saddam allowed inspectors back in?
So how long do we have to park the US army in Kuwait? Ten years? Twenty?
100,000 dead Iraqi's in a war
It is not the responsibility of the US Commander in Chief to worry about. That is Mr. Hussein's responsibility. He can quit and go to Libya any time.
AND, if the attacks really piss off the terrorists, how many civilians, Iraqis and Service men will end up dead?
This nation has for quite a while refused to submit to threats and blackmail. I think that's a good policy.
Some questions: Did you support Clinton's intervention in the Balkans?
If UN resolutions are to mean nothing, why should the US even bother being a member?
Is it your opinion that Saddam has given up all territotrial ambitions in the ME?
Should the US abandon support of Israel and let it sink or swim entirely on its own? You do agree that is the root of this problem, right? As lng as the US supports Israel, we are a target. |
