war is the only answer

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Our Discussion Forum]

Posted by George from hsdbsk64-201-205-49.sasknet.sk.ca (64.201.205.49) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 at 9:40PM :

Here is my beef with liberals in this situation:
Everyone wants to use the UN to fight Iraq. I think you have too much faith in the UN to do the right thing. I see a lot of bureaucracy and little action.

Sure the liberals say that the sanctions are horrible. How do you make sanctions only hurt the government and not the people. If Saddam had turned over all his weapons I believe that sanctions would be over. Now we have to go to war. He invaded another country and has failed to live up to the terms set to him for peace.

You see, we supported Afghanistan during its fight against the USSR. WHy couldn't the UN help the Afghany people at the time if they care so much about them now?

The liberals worry that we are dealing with other bad states to stop terrorism. How do they propose we fight the war if we had no allies?

Bin-Laden who was the leader of Al-Quaeda doesn't like our presence in Saudi Arabia. He sees us as keeping him from his goals there. I don't think Bin-Laden was trying to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. And any ways, we saved Saudi Arabia from being invaded by Saddam - isn't that worth something?

If everyone loves the UN so much why doesn't other countries give them more money? WHy rely on the US for everything?

The UN is so worried about terrorism from Israel. Let them step up to the plate and fight terrorism in Iraq. The problems in Israel will not go away this week. If you let Saddam get away with violations - might as well allow Israel too. Iraq violated their resolutions now we have to bomb him out of power.

If we would have went into Iraq in 91 and got rid of Saddam then we wouldn't be in this mess now.

The liberals say that the Afghan government is a puppet of the US - that is untrue and things are getting better there. The conditions in a new Iraq would be the same. In the long run things would get better. We've done it before: South Korea, Japan, Germany. The liberals say they are worried that the US will control yet another country. There are no governments today that are under US control.

How would weapons inspections continue without our armies on Saddam's boarders? What are the alternatives that the liberals are coming up with? France is not mentioning any of them.

Saddam is a threat now and he isn't going away anytime soon without a war. The war must happen.

Don't just respond to one item and then make it seem like everything I said was responded to either.

-- George
-- signature .

Follow Ups:

Sure it is...that´s why it´s worked so well... - pancho 12:53PM 03/12/2003 () (0)

PEACE is the only answer - Jeff 10:20PM 03/11/2003 () (3)

Re: PEACE is the only answer - George 10:46PM 03/11/2003 () (2)
- Re: PEACE is the only answer - George 0:58AM 03/13/2003 () (1)
  - Re: PEACE is the only answer - Jeff 9:55AM 03/13/2003 () (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:	( default )
Subject:
Message:	: Here is my beef with liberals in this situation: : Everyone wants to use the UN to fight Iraq. I think you have too much faith in the UN to do the right thing. I see a lot of bureaucracy and little action. : Sure the liberals say that the sanctions are horrible. How do you make sanctions only hurt the government and not the people. If Saddam had turned over all his weapons I believe that sanctions would be over. Now we have to go to war. He invaded another country and has failed to live up to the terms set to him for peace. : You see, we supported Afghanistan during its fight against the USSR. WHy couldn't the UN help the Afghany people at the time if they care so much about them now? : The liberals worry that we are dealing with other bad states to stop terrorism. How do they propose we fight the war if we had no allies? : Bin-Laden who was the leader of Al-Quaeda doesn't like our presence in Saudi Arabia. He sees us as keeping him from his goals there. I don't think Bin-Laden was trying to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. And any ways, we saved Saudi Arabia from being invaded by Saddam - isn't that worth something? : If everyone loves the UN so much why doesn't other countries give them more money? WHy rely on the US for everything? : The UN is so worried about terrorism from Israel. Let them step up to the plate and fight terrorism in Iraq. The problems in Israel will not go away this week. If you let Saddam get away with violations - might as well allow Israel too. Iraq violated their resolutions now we have to bomb him out of power. : If we would have went into Iraq in 91 and got rid of Saddam then we wouldn't be in this mess now. : The liberals say that the Afghan government is a puppet of the US - that is untrue and things are getting better there. The conditions in a new Iraq would be the same. In the long run things would get better. We've done it before: South Korea, Japan, Germany. The liberals say they are worried that the US will control yet another country. There are no governments today that are under US control. : How would weapons inspections continue without our armies on Saddam's boarders? What are the alternatives that the liberals are coming up with? France is not mentioning any of them. : Saddam is a threat now and he isn't going away anytime soon without a war. The war must happen. : Don't just respond to one item and then make it seem like everything I said was responded to either.

Optional Link ( default )
URL:
Title:
Optional Image Link ( default )
URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com