[QUOTE]
Originally posted by skinbag
[B][QUOTE]
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Iraq might not have been a good example for pre-emption, but the principle in of itself is both righteous and necessary. THe country has a duty to protect its citizens and I agree with Bush when he said waiting to get hit first is suicide.
Quote:
Do you have so little faith in our country? Do you really think 1 attack, even biological, could wipe out AMERICA ?
Remember Churchill and the brave people of England during WWII. I have talked many times to a great woman who was in London during the bombings, and she's much like you and I. I have to say we would not only survive, but come out swinging righteously and win.
Attacking Iraq using an unrelated event (9/11) as an excuse is simply chicken-shit. I believe in peace. If we have to choose between taking the first blow or pre-emtion, I'll take the first blow like a man, thank you very much. Acting from a place of fear is not patriotic. It's neurotic.
And if we were to attack Iraq, then at least we could be honest in our reasons, not waffling like the administration did. First it was yellowcake, then terrorists, and finally to liberate the Iraqi people..Oh please! We should just hand out a multiple-choice sheet so other countries can pick their favorite answer!
Bush and his chicken-hawks are scared little boys with real weapons, not patriots!
|
I have plenty of faith in America, and obviously one terrorist attack won't wipe out AMerica, I never said it would. And I agree somewhat with what you said, did we not come out swinging after 9/11 ???
But please spare me of your "I'll take a blow first then act, acting out of fear is neurotic" thats pure stupidity, and that mentality is wrong and evil if you are in the position to stop it (i.e. the gov't). The government's duty is to protect its citizens, should we let North Korea nuke us or give nukes to a rogue nation or terrorist group first before acting??? Get serious...
P.S. I never bought the Iraq terrorist connection, but I was still for the war. I would've supported Bush without the pre-emption case, which I'll be the first to admit is bogus, however Saddam did have weapons (don't be naive), but the weapons and Saddam were not a threat to national security.
Again Pre-emption is a necessary doctrine because it obvious that the world at large is not looking out for The U.S. We are well within our rights to protect our own BY ANY AND ALL MEANS NECESSARY!!!