Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
As someone who has once served, I can tell you one fact. No one, and I mean no one, prays for peace more then a soldier.
I fully support our war effort in Afghanistan. They attacked us, we attacked back, its that simple. I'm totally against wars that aren't preceded by an attack on the United States, or one of our allies.
Really? So if a foreign army invades your homeland and starts raping, pillaging, and murdering folks you would not want some form of an armed force declaring war against that invading army?
War is a horrible thing, but there are times were it is very much an acceptable necessity.
The UN inspection teams were not given ample time to inspect.
Quote:
Saddam agreed in November 2002 to allow the inspectors back into Iraq in line with UN resolution 1441, which gave him the chance to disprove claims he had weapons of mass destruction.
Sir Christopher said a "real problem" quickly emerged for the US and UK because their military timetable was not synchronised with the inspections.
US troops had been told to be ready to mobilise in March, despite the inspectors having reported a month earlier that they had found no weapons of mass destruction.
"Because you couldn't synchronise the programs ... preparation of war, inspections, you had to short-circuit the inspection process by finding the notorious smoking gun," Sir Christopher told the inquiry's third day of public hearings.
"And suddenly, because of that, the unforgiving nature of the military timetable, we found ourselves scrabbling for the smoking gun, which was another way of saying 'it's not that Saddam now has to prove that he's innocent, we've now bloody well got to try and prove that he's guilty'.
"And we - the Americans, the British - have never really recovered from that because, of course, there was no smoking gun."
If your attackers are a group of suicide bombers, it is a little difficult to do anything to them once they're already dead. What you must do in that case is prevent them from attacking. It does not follow that you have to invade their territory--merely that you must keep them from entering yours.
If your attackers are a group of suicide bombers, it is a little difficult to do anything to them once they're already dead. What you must do in that case is prevent them from attacking. It does not follow that you have to invade their territory--merely that you must keep them from entering yours.
Preemptive strike doctrine by Bush is under review:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whats your stance on WAR?
