Why NOT WAR on SADDAM?? - Post-9/11 Era

Why NOT WAR on SADDAM??

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: Buddy Short

I have a hard time listening to all of you ANTI-WAR mongrel's out there spouting NO WAR NO WAR NO WAR in light of the circumstances of THIS situation.

Granted - it's noble of all of you to make your statement, which by the way is always the same: "No to war!" whenever the possibility of ANY war sprouts up.

Where were you over 10 years ago when the UN security council of 15 members voted unanimously to march on Saddam Hussein?

Well, I tell ya what - a lot of you were pretty darn supportive or transparent enough to make no impact.

Get over the BUSH factor! Saddam is a BAD GUY! His invasion of Kuwait was bad enough, but his support of terrorists that bring down our buildings isn't. What gives?

I'm not advocating war is the only answer by any means - but what's wrong with getting a very bad man out of office where one has the power to affect further terrorist activity against our country? Where's this sudden sympathy coming from?

I'll tell you where - you're pissed at Bush! And your way of dealing with something he supports is to NOT SUPPORT IT - regardless of the facts and circumstances.

We need solutions and no one is willing to provide one after they say what WON'T WORK, according to them.

And it's BS to think that if we leave it all alone - it will all go away.

"It's the oil!", you scream. If so - then WHY didn't we take it when we could have a decade ago??



Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sean Kelly

There are alternatives to large scale death and destruction. I heard mentioned that they could get in there with undercover operatives and assasinate Hussein easily enough if they wanted to - end of story. But that's not the end of the story. They WANT death and destruction. The Art of War states:

quote:
Generally, in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this. To capture the enemy's entire army is better than to destroy it; to take intact a regiment, a company, or a squad is better than to destroy them. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.


Wise words, by my book.

I think many people present alternative solutions - they just tend to be ignored. There are always war protesters. The government tends to ignore them entirely as they don't represent the populous on whole, the dramatic ones are just a minority.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Buddy Short

But yet - still there are no solutions except to allow him to continue doing what it is he does.

Consider the context of the Art of War quote that comes in the end:

quote:
To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.


Of course it is - for the subduer now has that much larger of an army in which to take to the next battle.

Buddy
Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Post-9/11 Era Forum: Why NOT WAR on SADDAM??

Forum Forum Forum