Quote:
|
Originally Posted by iamnormal
Using DU puts our soldiers in danger, not using DU puts our soldiers in danger.
Where is the plus side to that?
DU isn't the problem. The problem is humans inability to live with each other peacefully.
|
The difference is war (while not the the greatest of actions.... not even in the top 1000 of smart moves) is an issue that man may face forever as agression is in our nature, the USE of something that will kill long after a war is not natural, but in fact malicious and as evil as man can possibly be.
There is a HUGE difference between being shot at and bombed by weapons that destroy now but leave the area liveable and that of using weapons that destroy everything now and leave everything healthily uninhabitable for years to come.
I'm sorry to me it is a crime to use weapons that can harm future generations when those weapons DO NOT NEED TO BE USED.
We are already on a very, very bad course with this war anyway. Before every war was aggressor against an agressee, and that was it. This time, supposing we are the good guys, the reasoning is "we are preventing agression". To others who do not buy into the lies of the gov't, it is still a war of agressor and aggressee only we are the aggressor.
Why add to it by using chemical and WMD's, especially when we used the excuse that we were going over there to prevent their use.