NOTE: Sorry if the following is offensive to anyone:
If its not justified now, why did we do it on Germany. Japan attacked us w/o Germany, but notonly did we get Japan, but we got germany FIRST!.
Japan and Germany were allies in the war. They worked together -- they as a group struck first.
And even if you do consider it preemptive, just because we did it in the past does not mean in any way we should do it now. We enslaved people in the past. We've learned and don't do it anymore.
UN inspectors have had 12 years to do their job
Inspections were called off after (and during) the Gulf War (but I could be wrong there). This was the UN's decision.
Bush in no way needs the U.N. to "approve" the war
True, but to legally declare war he does need congress' approval - many people forget that.
I AM in favor of disarming Iraq -- however, I feel that doing it by force is incorrect because this would make it even more likely for a biological weapon to be given to a terrorist group.
Yeah, I know, you think that peace is best for your country but, you know, if there's no war eventually there won't be an America because WE'LL ALL BE DEAD!
If there were no war at all, anywhere, no one would ever die from the things we are dealing with today.
like i would be if i were living in a communist country
IMO, communist countries are not the problem - it's the people who are running some of them.
Protesting is anti-american becasue they are protesting what is in the best interest of our country: self-defense
What is best for our country is an opinion, and opinions are free to discuss. It's one of the things that makes America what it is. Are you saying that exercising your right to freedom of speech is anti-American?
i just feel extremely uneasy about a preemptive strike based on what-ifs and circumstantial evidence. what's to stop another country from pointing fingers at us and making accusations that we have unauthorized weapons and deciding to go ahead and launch a preemptive strike? while this may be an unlikely scenario, my point is that starting a war on such ambiguous evidence opens up the possibilities of future wars based on threadbare evidence.
I agree. It would allow India and Pakistan to launch preemptive strikes against one another.
I know that right now, you can say you don't want any one to die, but when push comes to shove, someone is gonna die.
If we hadn't gotten into this in the first place, there would be a large chance that no one would die.