war in iraq Options

[*Kathleen*]

Adding onto uninspiredfae, I'd like to ask you how he is a power-hungry dictator. How is he a dictator when he's trying to help our country? He took action after September 11th. A dictator (especially a bad one) would do no such thing. Furthermore, our country's Constitution does not allow for him to be a dictator. There are many restrictions on the president that makes it so he doesn't have too much power. Pay attention in social studies, kid.

[tkproduce]

maybe the election of a republican was part of the reason for Sept 11

[*kryogenix*]

maybe the election of a republican was part of the reason for Sept 11

or maybe it was the problems inherited from bill clinton. i can't believe you are bringing partisan politics into this.

[Spirited Away]

Or maybe in the eyes of Terrorists, America and her citizens just suck because we have a better lifestyles so they go on their rampant killings of people who work their ass off for their freedom.

[tkproduce]

maybe the terrorists are getting revenge themselves for what the Americans have done to the ones they love

[Spirited Away]

maybe the terrorists are getting revenge themselves for what the Americans have done to the ones they love

done what?

[tkproduce]

Actually I think the ongoing war in Palestine is the main reason behind the terrorist movement. The way the Americans took the sacred Muslim land from the Palestines and handed it over to the Jews probably angered the Muslim extremists

Sorry, I don't know much about this Palestinian War. Correct me if I'm wrong

[Spirited Away]

The way the Americans took the sacred Muslim land from the Palestines and handed it over to the Jews probably angered the Muslim extremists

That's probably the case, but we didn't do it in support for Jews, we did it to secure oil supply. But why are they so focused on America, when England was there even before us?
The whole Palestine thing is just that there are insecure people who fears the US supporting Israel.

But if we didn't get involve, our oil prices may go sky rocketing... That and the fact that those extremist terrorist groups were attacking and killing Jewish citizens and that alone equals attacks on freedom and the right to happiness.

[tkproduce]

That's probably the case, but we didn't do it in support for Jews, we did it to secure oil supply. But why are they so focused on America, when England was there even before us?
The whole Palestine thing is just that there are insecure people who fears the US supporting Israel.

But if we didn't get involve, our oil prices may go sky rocketing... That and the fact that those extremist terrorist groups were attacking and killing Jewish citizens and that alone equals attacks on freedom and the right to happiness.

I guess anti-semitism is the cause of war again.

About the Palestinian people being insecure, how would you feel if some big country decided to take away land from your own country and just handed it over to a group of people that you naturally hate?

[Spirited Away]

There's no excuse, and I agree, but I'm saying that England had been there before the US for the same reason: oil. And now that the situation has been transfer to US control, everyone's suddenly freaking out.

The whole problem with "handing over" the land is a tatic to create an ally (our only ally) in the Middle East. We also give military aid to Turkey and Egypt, by the way, to ensure friendly terms.

I guess, also the fact that the Jews suffered so tremendously in the WW and they were suffering under the attacks of terrorist groups that they are more in favor with the rest of the world than the Muslims.

how would you feel if some big country decided to take away land from your own country and just handed it over to a group of people that you naturally hate?

Sure, I'd be pissed and would want to kill some people to satisfy my anger, but then I'd expect those people to defend themselves and I'd expect some retaliation. And that's exactly what US is doing: defend and retaliate.

[tkproduce]

Sure, I'd be pissed and would want to kill some people to satisfy my anger, but then I'd expect those people to defend themselves and I'd expect some retaliation. And that's exactly what US is doing: defend and retaliate.

Retaliation is exactly what the terrorists want. The war has caused the world to have split views and has caused havoc everywhere. Now they have an excuse for more terrorists attacks. Their line of argument may be something like - "they're in our country bombing us, why shouldn't we be allowed to bomb theirs?" They were obviously expecting war and that's why they launched the Sept 11 attack while war-hungry Bush was President. They knew that the world would have split opinions and that some international friendships would be broken - exactly what they planned.

[Spirited Away]

The war has caused the world to have split views and has caused havoc everywhere. Now they have an excuse for more terrorists attacks.

So, you're saying that it's a you bite me, I bite you back situation. I can understand that, but I don't think the world would be in support of those terrorists if their country got bombed and more than 3000 of their citizens died.

They were obviously expecting war and that's why they launched the Sept 11 attack while war-hungry Bush was President.

In saying so, you're also saying that they wanted a fight, therefore they started a fight. Well, if they want a fight, I'd want a President who'd fight back to protect the country, not someone who'd cowered or say "oh lets let it go, a few casualties shouldn't matter."

They knew that the world would have split opinions and that some international friendships would be broken

International ties may waiver, but I don't think it can be broken as most of the world's economy depends on US's well-being. Well, not so much now that the Euro is competing with the dollar, but that doesn't mean countries can cut ties with the US.

[dasturbd]

I must admit I have to laugh at all the Bush bashing. Do you honestly think the only reason the man wanted into office was so he could start a war??

C'mon people, if it were Gore in office you'd be bashin him and praying for Bush!! Oh but wait...If Gore was in office he'd still be standing at ground zero with his thumb up his ass trying to figure out what happened!!

About protesting, what in the world do protestors of the war really think that Bush will all of a sudden call a cease fire and pull out because of protestors over here?!?!

Exactly!! How do you think the soldiers over there fighting feel about protestors?? It's got to be like a kick in the face to them, because whether or not people are protesting the war, it comes off as not supporting our men and women fighting. All the protesting during Vietnam didn't do anything positive, not too mention the protestors themselves greeted our soldiers back to the U.S. by spitting on them and calling them baby killers. What exactly did that prove?? They were doing a job they signed up for, it's not like you can just quit.

As far as the cost of oil going up, sure it's gonna skyrocket, and until they come up with alternatives (like hydro-cells) there isn't a damn thing we can do about it!! They are not going to get rid of "gasoline" any time in the near future, because our economy is dependant on it...and that's not a Bush thing, it's a Government thing and it wouldn't matter who was in office.

[tkproduce]

As far as the cost of oil going up, sure it's gonna skyrocket, and until they come up with alternatives (like hydro-cells) there isn't a damn thing we can do about it!!

Maybe spend more money on scientific research to find alternatives to gasoline engine cars and not on the research and production of bigger and better weapons of bombing Iraq perhaps?

[Spirited Away]

Maybe spend more money on scientific research to find alternatives to gasoline engine cars and not on the research and production of bigger and better weapons of bombing Iraq perhaps?

Production of weapons generate revenue that can go towards research and developement (R&D) and the rest of the economy as well. That was a small part that pulled us out of the Great Depression (going to war, and selling weapons).

Now, I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but "research and production of bigger and better weapons" yields the same results as R&D of other technologies.

[tkproduce]

I was wondering if there is actually anything WRONG with not taking any action against the terrorists? Yes, they might attack again and innocent people may get killed, but even so, it was the terrorists that were in the WRONG, but was it WRONG for the receiving end to take no action?

This is sort of like the Type I and Type II errors in statistics. Is it worse to convict the inncoent (Type I error) or acquit the guilty (Type II error)? Sorry, I'm a mathematician...

[Spirited Away]

First

Sorry, I'm a mathematician...

Haha, and I suck at Math so badly....
Anyway, back to topic.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not taking actions against them, but then that would mean that we're allowing them to think that it's okay to mass murder and get away with it. What kind of justice system would allow that?

A child will not know that it's wrong to steal if he/she receives no punishment for it.

This is sort of like the Type I and Type II errors in statistics. Is it worse to convict the inncoent (Type I error) or acquit the guilty (Type II error)?

I wouldn't call terrorists innocent though, because they're not...

[tkproduce]

I wouldn't call terrorists innocent though, because they're not...

You missed the point slightly - I meant which is worse:

1. Convicting the innocent, e.g. kill someone that could be guilty but actually is completely innocent, or

2. Acquiting the guilty, e.g. letting go of a someone you thought was innocent, but was actually guilty.

In most court cases, the first error is considered to be more serious than the second one. A lot of movies portray this error - The Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, The Life of David Gale.

The problem with terrorists is, that the 2nd error may prove to be more fatal than the 1st error. The question is whether to risk Type I errors in order to reduce Type II errors.

[Spirited Away]

and I'm telling you that:

A child will not know that it's wrong to steal if he/she receives no punishment for it.

[dasturbd]

Maybe spend more money on scientific research to find alternatives to gasoline engine cars and not on the research and production of bigger and better weapons of bombing Iraq perhaps?

The production of weapons is big business and it employs thousands of people...so it would take jobs away for one, and secondly...they have done the research and Im pretty sure that they do know of ways to run automobiles alternatively, but they won't because gasoline brings money into the economy.

Just because they're not out on the market doesn't mean they dont exist.

[onenonly101]

I forgot this..

We say it is a war on terrorism, but how come we are fighting ONE country. The terorist did nto all come from Iraq and even if they did they are the majority of the country. If it is a war on terrorism we would not be fighting one country.

[tkproduce]

I forgot this..

We say it is a war on terrorism, but how come we are fighting ONE country. The terorist did nto all come from Iraq and even if they did they are the majority of the country. If it is a war on terrorism we would not be fighting one country.

it's because if it was an actual war on terrorism, America would probably have to bomb itself

[*Kathleen*]

it's because if it was an actual war on terrorism, America would probably have to bomb itself

Pft - WHAT?!

Also, about your theory: you must realize every system has its flaws. No system is perfect.

[Spirited Away]

We say it is a war on terrorism, but how come we are fighting ONE country. The terorist did nto all come from Iraq and even if they did they are the majority of the country. If it is a war on terrorism we would not be fighting one country.

That's why it should be an international effort to flush out those bastards who can kill and hide. Unfortunately, only America is up to the task of protecting herself and riding the world of that menace.

it's because if it was an actual war on terrorism, America would probably have to bomb itself 

HA ~ HA... are you trying to be funny? If not, then give evidence to support your claim.

[Nehima]

Hey, I support it simply because I don't want to see any more American civilians dying here, like September 11.

I mean, there are other reasons, but I'll post this later if someone else refutes this.

i think iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. bush was just looking for someone to blame that we were actually capable of capturing. he fooled americans into thinking that we were "liberating" the iraqi people. but we're not--most don't even want us there and innocent troops are dying. the united nations didn't fully support the war. it isn't exactly smart to have the world dislike you. but if we take our troops out now, it will look bad because we didn't finish something that got started.

so, in conclusion, i do NOT support the war in iraq--at all.