Down the middle? Hardly. 39 votes so far – 32 no, 7 yes.
Absofrigginlutely! And the sooner the better. Geesh, talk about somebody’s five minutes being up! Scramble the planes, George!
It’s time to purge the planet of this ignorant “mennis.”
Undecided. The Anti-war sentiment at my college is a bit too rabid for me to jump on the bandwagon just yet. A lot of what I see totters to the point of being Iraqi Propiganda.
One concern that I do have for the US getting involved is this spiraling into a really big and scary conflict. What if the US starts openly defying the UN? What happens when they tell them “We’re tired of following your rules, so we’re going to make our own”. What would happen if the US secceeds from the UN? Pisses off its allies to the point of a world war?
Hate to say it, but WWAGD? (What Would Al Gore Do?) if he was president now? Jimmy Carter comes to mind…
yojimboguy: I think Achernar was making a little joke.
No, but not dogmatically so. I just remain unconvinced the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits at this point.
- Tamerlane
Err…Strike that - reverse it :D.
- Tamerlane
No. I think a war will damage US national security possibly encouraging the very co-operation between Iraq and terrorists that it is supposed to prevent.
I think running a post- invasion Iraq will be a can of worms and the vision of a long-run ,stable, pro-US democracy which will inspire the Arab world is naive at best.
NO.
But W’s had his six-guns strapped on ever since he walked in to the Oval Office, so I don’t think my vote counts this time either…
No.
IMO, Saddam, while odious beyond belief, is simply not as much of a danger to US interests as the administration claims. And then there’s the little matter of all the Iraqi civilians who will end up in the line of US fire, and the fact that we right-thinking folks will promptly forget about all that foreign collateral damage, while patting ourselves on the backs for our quick victory.
Add 2 more NOs to the tally – one for me and one for Spiny Norman (with his permission).
I’m leaning on the yes side.
Personally I believe that he is developing WMD for the purpose of using them. I find it very analogous to Hitler( and shut your damn mouth, it’s a perfectly valid comparison in this situation) pre WWII. Except that in the age of WMD the aspiring insane Dictator doesn’t need to create anywhere near as much of a Military Complex as Germany needed to build. All it will take is one or two devices and he will be able to annhililate Israel, and if he is allowed to create them, I believe he will, before trying to do as much damage to America as he can.
It will also hurt Terrorists abilities to hide, by make one more place inhositable. And hopefully a Government that is good for the people can be implemented and supported by the world(Our attempts at that in the world so far havn’t been a rousing success or anything, but is a worthy goal).
Of course the downsides are, dead American soldiers, Dead Iraqi civilians, possible regional destabilization, and the threat of creating more terrorists in future generations.
Using my internal pragmatism converter to give value to all of those factors I come out leaning on the side going to War.No, we should ignore and isolate Iraq.
Yes.
No, I strongly believe we should not.
No.
There’s no reason to believe that Saddam is connected to Al Queda, or that he would use his famous weapons of mass destruction on a civillain target even if it turns out that he does have them. On the other hand, if we do invade, then he might start missile attacks on Israel, as he did during the Gulf War. Or he might attack neighboring Arab countries, just to get them pissed off at us.
Yes.
No.
I do believe that we need to act to protect ourselves and to stop the production of W.M.D. by a dangerous, ruthless, U.S.-hating dictator like Saddam, but I don’t think it’s right either to jump in and suddenly go to war after failing to follow up on inspection refusals for 8+ years.
We might have avoided a lot of this if we had IMMEDIATELY responded with a sharply focused, clearly defined attack the day after they first booted the inspectors and showed that they wouldn’t live up to the U.N. agreement.
But after lolly-gagging around for 8 years, stuck in bureaucracy, various Clinton-gates, and relative apathy (until 9/11), it’s not right to change the de facto rules and jump in with war after such a short period of deciding that, after all, we really do mean business.
In short, I’d argue for a longer transition period, increasing threats, sanctions, etc., before just jumping in after just a few months of this new understanding.
I won’t argue with there being nothing new about any understanding. The only thing new is that we have sent troops. Should we bring them home or leave them over there until…well whatever it is that’ll make everybody happy. Will Saddam feel imboldened after having called our bluff?
[sup]We wait until Feb 5th. and then again until Feb. 14th and then CHARGE![/sup]
YES!
Then North Korea. I just watched 60 Minutes and that place is hell on earth.
We should start rescuing all of our fellow humans who are living under dictatorships and ridiculous “cultures” that date back to the dark ages. Take over the countries and put in democratic governments. View all countries just as we would a state that some freak tried to take over. (no, not Minnesota)
We should start viewing the world as one big country with some of the “states” being run by evil megalomaniacs WHO HAVE TO GO.
The world is too dangerous. We have to act now or there will be catastrophic (nuclear) consequences in the very near future.
Iraq will fall in 2 weeks.
And I don’t even like Bush that much.
YES
for the same reasons as djf750.
But hell my vote probably shouldn’t count though becuase if it were up to me; I’d try to make the whole world fall under one goverment that gives freedom of choice to the people.
No.
But maybe I’m just cynical for not accepting “Well, the fact that we haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction is PROOF that they’re not cooperating with us!”