Quote:
Originally posted by Spank-A-Thon
It was said that the British SAS was within striking distance of Hussein during the last Gulf War, but were ordered not to assasinate him. If they can do it once, they can do it again. Why not give the UN another 40 days or so? I can't see how he can be anymore of a threat in 40 days time. At least with UN backing the world will not see it as Blair & Bush going it alone.
|
Another 40 days! How many 40 days does he get!? The UN is weak as it is because it has no army to stop countries with in it. Giving another 40 days gives Sadam more time to hide his weapons or to strengthen his defenses or to come up with some crazy plan. Maybe in that time North Korea or some other country joins them.
If they truly were in striking distance and had a legitimate chance then I see no reason why they couldn't do it again. But reporting about it makes it hard for me to believe.
Quote:
That is quite possibly one of the most insensitive things I have ever heard... Being in Her Majesty's Armed Forces is my brothers job, and yes - both we and he realize it is a job he could be killed by.
But if my brother's life is to be lost in a war, at least let that war be a moral, and justifiable war - not that utter farce that this current situation is shaping up to be.
|
I don't care if it is insensitive. Why should I be sensitive to a killing machine? After all some of them like to be called that. My point is that they took a pledge to kill when they were told where they are told to do it and with what they should do it. Maybe not to those exact words but what I am saying is that person had a choice as to what they wanted to do and they chose to join the military knowing (I hope) the consequences of what could happen. My Grandfather was in the Army for the Korean War and the Vietnam War. My dad was in the Navy, my brother joined the army for a brief time, and my Uncle is in the Air Force. If you think I am being insensitive because I have no one that is or has been in the military then I guess you know now.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fortune
guess she only wanted to underline an hypocritical attitude, not the event in itself. The kind of attitude that says "We're all concerned, but we keep on living our lives looking at glittery faces and worrying about our usual cheap values".
|
I know what she meant. I just wanted to point out that some other anti-war people have different views on how to go about this. Like the MLB and NCAA are thinking of delaying the start of the NCAA tourney and opening day (Though a pole on ESPN.com said that about 75% of the people who voted did not want to see the tourney delayed. Might have reached a decision by now.)
Quote:
|
I have many doubts about the fact lives won't be wasted or that terrorism will be weakened. When it comes to these things, you can't really tell. Even if lives will be ruined, do you think the media will show anything to us, to make us blame the madness of the world's leaders? Of course not. If you control the media, you can give a new shape to events. Probably, terrorism won't be weakened at all, by this kind of action. If possible, it'll grow stronger. I agree that this war is definitely not against terrorists. For taking care of terrorism, there's no need to go and nuke a whole country, I suppose.
|
Lives are not wasted unless it is abortion... It will just take a lot of deaths to make people see that this is not a good idea. The media wont show it but there are rumors that Sadam has a group dressed like the American army that are supposed to kill civilians while someone tapes it. That is sickening.
Who exactly are we fighting then? I guess you can call it an organized army. But we are still fighting terrorists. Does it take another 9/11 to change people's opinions? Because you know that stuff happens all the time around the world and even in the US every day, only on smaller scales.