Anti-war arguments, that don't even sound anti-war to me...

[infinite59]

I'm anti-war but I don't even like the arguments the majority of anti-war activists make.  Here are a few.


"Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction."

-This argument is assuming that if America does infact find weapons of mass destruction abroad it has the right to wage war against that country.  Nevermind, that America has 12,000 nukes of it's own.

"Sadaam Hussien has been contained for the last ten years.  War is not the answer"

-This argument foolishly suggests that sanctions are feasible substitute for war.  But it is sanctions have killed thousands of Iraqi children everywhere.  It is also economic sanctions that fuel hopelessness, anger, and extremism.

"America will be too occupied with Iraq to find Osama and fight it's war on terrorism."

-Yeah right.  America could fight North Korea, so-called terrorism, Iraq, Iran, Sierra all at once and probably win.  And it appears that we are headed in that direction.  This argument also falsely suggests that the war on so-called terrorism is a just war.  The war on so-called terrorism is really just a front for America's imperialistic aims.

"We need inspections, not war."

-Once again, we are suggesting that because we put a gun to Sadaam's head after the Gulf War and forced him to sign a treaty, that that treaty should be upheld when we ourselves have 12,000 more nuclear weapons than him

"Germany, Russia, and France did the right thing."

-No.  Actually they were just thinking of the money they won't be making after America occupies Iraq and they no longer get bargain deals from Sadaam.

"Bush is evil."

-Now ant-war activists are making the same mistake of projecting all that is wrong within themselves onto another person.  Rather it is the system that needs to be checked.  The political system in which a presidential hopeful must be either a democrat or republican.  Which means our country will continue to be ran by special interest groups.  Dick Cheney's oil company won billion dollar contracts for restoring Iraq's oil after this war.  And there are upwards of 600-million dollar contracts being given construction companies connected with the government to rebiuld the city.  Capatalism is destroying and rebiulding.

[Don Jacob]

good post although i disagree with a few things

Nevermind, that America has 12,000 nukes of it's own.

it takes a lot to set off one of our own nukes, to set one off you'd either have to aim one at us or the house and senate will have to hold a  debate on weather or not to use the arm....in wich the president, advized by his cabinet (especially the sec of defense) can either carry on with the result or veto an action to launch the nuke..........it's not like theres a red button in the oval office he can just push , plus there are keys and shit and codes ect.............so it takes a lot to fire off 1 of those nukes these days , i think i trust the US and Britain more than an unstable nation

[Woodrow]

"Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction."

-This argument is assuming that if America does infact find weapons of mass destruction abroad it has the right to wage war against that country.  Nevermind, that America has 12,000 nukes of it's own.

Does the United Nations have a resolution stating that American will not make or have any WMD's? Has the United States nuked it's own people? This is an invalid argument.

"Sadaam Hussien has been contained for the last ten years.  War is not the answer"

-This argument foolishly suggests that sanctions are feasible substitute for war.  But it is sanctions have killed thousands of Iraqi children everywhere.  It is also economic sanctions that fuel hopelessness, anger, and extremism.

Let's take a look back at why the sanctions were placed on Iraq in the first place. Do you really think there would be sanctions on Iraq if Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait? Please....

"America will be too occupied with Iraq to find Osama and fight it's war on terrorism."

-Yeah right.  America could fight North Korea, so-called terrorism, Iraq, Iran, Sierra all at once and probably win.  And it appears that we are headed in that direction.  This argument also falsely suggests that the war on so-called terrorism is a just war.  The war on so-called terrorism is really just a front for America's imperialistic aims.

Like our imperialistic aims in the first gulf war? Like our imperialistic aims in the Kosovo conflict? Like our imperialistic aims in Afghanistan?

-Once again, we are suggesting that because we put a gun to Sadaam's head after the Gulf War and forced him to sign a treaty, that that treaty should be upheld when we ourselves have 12,000 more nuclear weapons than him

Who's fault is this? Is it America's fault that Saddam isn't accountable for his actions? If he never planned on following the guidelines set out by the cease-fire, why did he sign it? If he didn't want to be destoryed by the American armed forces, why did he invade Kuwait.

-No.  Actually they were just thinking of the money they won't be making after America occupies Iraq and they no longer get bargain deals from Sadaam.

Perhpas, But We will be setting up Iraq so they can make decisions to sell oil to whomever they want.

Dick Cheney's oil company won billion dollar contracts for restoring Iraq's oil after this war.  And there are upwards of 600-million dollar contracts being given construction companies connected with the government to rebiuld the city.  Capatalism is destroying and rebiulding.

Wrong...
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton, the energy and construction company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is no longer in the running for a $600 million contract to rebuild post-war Iraq, according to the United States Agency for International Development.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/28/news/companies/Halliburton/index.htm

[Agua]

I'm anti-war but I don't even like the arguments the majority of anti-war activists make.  Here are a few.


"Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction."

-This argument is assuming that if America does infact find weapons of mass destruction abroad it has the right to wage war against that country.  Nevermind, that America has 12,000 nukes of it's own.

"Sadaam Hussien has been contained for the last ten years.  War is not the answer"

-This argument foolishly suggests that sanctions are feasible substitute for war.  But it is sanctions have killed thousands of Iraqi children everywhere.  It is also economic sanctions that fuel hopelessness, anger, and extremism.

"America will be too occupied with Iraq to find Osama and fight it's war on terrorism."

-Yeah right.  America could fight North Korea, so-called terrorism, Iraq, Iran, Sierra all at once and probably win.  And it appears that we are headed in that direction.  This argument also falsely suggests that the war on so-called terrorism is a just war.  The war on so-called terrorism is really just a front for America's imperialistic aims.

"We need inspections, not war."

-Once again, we are suggesting that because we put a gun to Sadaam's head after the Gulf War and forced him to sign a treaty, that that treaty should be upheld when we ourselves have 12,000 more nuclear weapons than him

"Germany, Russia, and France did the right thing."

-No.  Actually they were just thinking of the money they won't be making after America occupies Iraq and they no longer get bargain deals from Sadaam.

"Bush is evil."

-Now ant-war activists are making the same mistake of projecting all that is wrong within themselves onto another person.  Rather it is the system that needs to be checked.  The political system in which a presidential hopeful must be either a democrat or republican.  Which means our country will continue to be ran by special interest groups.  Dick Cheney's oil company won billion dollar contracts for restoring Iraq's oil after this war.  And there are upwards of 600-million dollar contracts being given construction companies connected with the government to rebiuld the city.  Capatalism is destroying and rebiulding.

good post. sadly, the "enlightened" people on this board won't agree.

[Maestro Minded]

good post although i disagree with a few things

Nevermind, that America has 12,000 nukes of it's own.

it takes a lot to set off one of our own nukes, to set one off you'd either have to aim one at us or the house and senate will have to hold a  debate on weather or not to use the arm....in wich the president, advized by his cabinet (especially the sec of defense) can either carry on with the result or veto an action to launch the nuke..........it's not like theres a red button in the oval office he can just push , plus there are keys and shit and codes ect.............so it takes a lot to fire off 1 of those nukes these days , i think i trust the US and Britain more than an unstable nation

it didnt take much when yall bombed hiroshima and nagasaki..... (yes.. i brought it up again)...

[Quakaveli]

good post although i disagree with a few things

Nevermind, that America has 12,000 nukes of it's own.

it takes a lot to set off one of our own nukes, to set one off you'd either have to aim one at us or the house and senate will have to hold a  debate on weather or not to use the arm....in wich the president, advized by his cabinet (especially the sec of defense) can either carry on with the result or veto an action to launch the nuke..........it's not like theres a red button in the oval office he can just push , plus there are keys and shit and codes ect.............so it takes a lot to fire off 1 of those nukes these days , i think i trust the US and Britain more than an unstable nation

it didnt take much when yall bombed hiroshima and nagasaki..... (yes.. i brought it up again)...

GOD, did your grandparents die in that bombings or something?

[Agua]

good post although i disagree with a few things

Nevermind, that America has 12,000 nukes of it's own.

it takes a lot to set off one of our own nukes, to set one off you'd either have to aim one at us or the house and senate will have to hold a  debate on weather or not to use the arm....in wich the president, advized by his cabinet (especially the sec of defense) can either carry on with the result or veto an action to launch the nuke..........it's not like theres a red button in the oval office he can just push , plus there are keys and shit and codes ect.............so it takes a lot to fire off 1 of those nukes these days , i think i trust the US and Britain more than an unstable nation

it didnt take much when yall bombed hiroshima and nagasaki..... (yes.. i brought it up again)...

GOD, did your grandparents die in that bombings or something?

omg.... and guys like you complain about french teenagers devastating a cemetery... hypocrisy

[TheSheriff]

it didnt take much when yall bombed hiroshima and nagasaki..... (yes.. i brought it up again)...

1945=nuclear bombs had just been invented, and there were no guidelines

2003=nuclear bombs have strict Congressional guidelines

Please get your facts straight.