Jp wrote:

My thoughts is that your president is giving up popularity for the much scarcer and better valued morality. Why should he join Georgie of the urban jungle in an attack on a third world country which has not been proven to have weapons of mass destruction, has the support of most of his people, and has made no threatening moves? And, if Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, so what? Only america has ever used them, and there are plenty of other countries with weapons of mass destruction that have a worse regime. (coughcoughnorthkoreacoughcough)

Just a point of correction here: America is the only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons in war. So far as I know we've never used chemical or biological weapons. Chemical weapons however have been used: Germany used them in WWI, and Saddam's Iraq used them during the Iran-Iraq war and also against the northern Kurds about a decade ago.

Lummox JR

I think that my favorite webpage can sum this up best.
http://maddox.xmission.com/war.html
Nobody seems to understand WHY we are going to war. Suddam support terrorists, he pays them, he funnels money, he has weapons of mass destruction, yeah so do we, but we aren't thugs who kill our own people ruthlessly. Also, we have done plenty for france and russia and china, so why is it that we arent getting support now? Because those countries have business with Iraq, they are owed money from Iraq, if we go to war, they dont get paid.
- Jon

Because people--even world leaders--are stubborn. There's been a major diplomatic crash, and both sides have been getting increasingly insistent, to the point where backing down on any end is no longer an option at all. Bush cannot back down: going to war without an urgent need is dumb, hollering about it for 6 months beforehand is dumber, and hollering about it for 6 months and then giving up is the dumbest of all--this would be the rough equivalent of standing up and yelling "ATTENTION TERRORISTS: AMERICA HAS NO BALLS." By the same token, those countries opposed to the war cannot back down: bringing up reservations about a war is smart, continually bringing up reservations about a war that's going to happen anyways and will likely remain a minor issue in the long run is a bit less smart, and bringing up reservations about a war for months on end, stalling and irritating your one-time allies only to just drop it and buckle under is world-class stupid.

Yamamushi wrote:

Nobody seems to understand WHY we are going to war.

That's because few people actually do their homework before spouting off ill-informed opinions. I'm reminded of a news report late last week that interviewed high school kids who had walked out of class to protest the war. Many of them couldn't name Iraq as the country we would go to war against (asking them to find it on a map would have been a real hoot, I'm sure). Few of them had any idea what issues were involved (weapons violations, etc). One girl proclaimed that she was adamantly against this war, which had already slain millions of innocent children in Africa.

My limited understanding is this (someone correct me if I'm wrong):

• In 1990 Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait, completely unprovoked
• The US and other allied forces come in for 6 weeks in the beginning of 1991 and kick Saddam's butt back to Iraq.
• As a condition to end the Gulf War, Saddam agrees to cease all Iraqi programs developing biological, chemical, and mass destruction weapons. He further agrees to destroy all current stockpiles of such weapons.
• Over the next 12 years, the UN attempts to diplomatically enforce that treaty, sending in weapons inspectors and passing several resolutions to up the pressure when Saddam does not comply.
• Meanwhile, Saddam shows no signs of compliance, acting defiant in the face of UN diplomatic pressure.
• US Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld convince George W Bush that Saddam knows the UN is a lame duck in this matter and will likely never act with force. Saddam laughs as he gets away with breaking his agreement with the UN.
• Bush agrees to step up the pressure on Saddam, but works for months trying to garner UN support for tougher measures to show Saddam that he can't push them around. This is much to the chagrin of Cheney and Rumsfeld, who want to go play war.
• The UN, afraid of the consequences of military conflict, does nothing, choosing to allow Saddam to do whatever he wants, despite the agreement from over a decade earlier.
• Bush has waited long enough, and much to the chagrin of Secretary of State Colin Powell, decides to press on without full UN support.
• The US gives Saddam an ultimatum to get out so that the agreement ending the Gulf War and finally be put in place, or suffer military consequences. The Bush administration feels that we finally need to show Saddam that we honor and enforce our international treaties, instead of laying down and letting him violate it for a dozen years.
  
  Personally I've been mostly against a war effort, primarily because of the negative consequences that may occur. Like many Bush haters (I never really liked the guy much) I thought he must be trying to get his hands on Iraqi oil. But after actually reading up on the subject, I seriously doubt this is the case (for one thing, Saddam will likely direct his soldiers to destroy oil wells if it comes down to that). It's a simple matter of enforcing an agreement that was made years earlier. We have every right to do it, and many would argue every obligation.
  
  That said, I still don't want war, but what are ya gonna do? For some tips on what to do in case of a terror attack, look here.

War stimulates economy. By your statement then, war is the best thing for our country right now.

In WWII I think the U.S. used sulphur bombs(I think it was sulphur), and I think that could be considered a chemical weapon.


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>

I prefer the removal of each inch of skin on his body without damaging the nerves, then pouring salt and lemon juice on him.



<<>>Kusanagi<<>>

War drives the economy up, are you going to ignore me a second time?

I saw some inflight footage of that, and an interveiw with the pilots flying on that mission. I was a complete and utter accident, nontheless a horrible thing. It shouldnt have happened, but then again, no freindly fire should happen. You cant go into war and expect not to lose a few men, to anyone. If Canada doesnt want to help, fine, weve got 250,000 troops in Kuwait, its not a big deal. Canada has a lot of good reasons not to help, and not very many to help.

I completely agree. Leaders of countries that have decided to stand behind the U.S. have allowed money to come ahead of morality. Their people, their OWN citizens, oppose their decision. But, hey, what are a bunch of citizens compared to a few billion dollars and a handshake from the U.S....

-Dagolar