| Why is it most of the anti-war posters on this board are in Europe?
I know they're not all from Europe, but most of the hard-core anti war posts that I've read are from Spain, UK and France....
Then you hear on the news about American graves being desecrated at Normandy.
I seem to remember the fact that if it were not for the US, most of Europe would be speaking German.
Let's look at some of the other objections to war, and some of the responses are taken from other people who could express themselves better than I.
"Attacking Iraq will risk destabilization of the region"
-Where is there stability anywhere in the region? in the last twenty years: invade Iran, gas them, gas minority Kurds in the north, invade Kuwait, steal, rape and murder Kuwaitis, burn oil fields, brutally murder political dissidents, offer to reimburse families of Palestinean suicide bombers, and assemble an arsenal of biological and chemical weaponry (you know... and replacing the ones they've already used). Then you turn on the TV and see people calling Bush a liar for saying they channel money to terrorist groups. The real question is, DOES IT MATTER? This state is a menace to all that is sane and humanitarian in the Middle East (by "all," I mean not much). Anti-War people want to stand out in twenty degree temperatures because Bush brought forth questionable evidence? How about the last twenty years?
“No War for Oil"
-Iraq is 6th in importing oil to the United States. We don't really need Iraq's oil. In fact, their exports are minute compared to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. If we really wanted cheaper oil, wouldn't we step in and stop the oil-workers strikes in Nigeria and Venezuela? You know, since Venezuela exports TWICE as much oil to the US as Iraq. No, the only possible oil motive is to stop them from destabilizing the region, causing gas hikes. SO We're there to secure less than 12% of our oil, 12% we could easily get from somewhere else. Get a clue.
“Wars cost too much money”
-But we spend billions of dollars fighting this war that could be spent on the economy." Sounds like a good idea.... Ooops, you forgot how much money we spend every year AVOIDING war. We send North Korea tens of billions of dollars in food and aid because they can't afford to feed their citizens. But wait, they seem to have enough money to fund an extensive nuclear program and an army that is bigger than ours. These people annually threaten attacking the South unless they get more food. So, we incrementally pay more and more for them to have a big army and menace the world. Cute. Then, in 1997, we caught them selling food to Japan. Bill Clinton sent them "$5 billion in nuclear power and technology in exchange for them promising to freeze their nuclear arms program." This isn't even considering the money and resources devoted to containing them, watching them, and maintaining a force to continually protect their neighbors. So, you hypocrites keep complaining about the monetary outlays of war, but go on ignoring the mounting yearly cost of paying to not fight a war. But no, political solutions really are the best. | |
