You just proved my point exactly.

The feeling that the US somehow controls the UN. It does not. Nor should it. The UN exists to make sure that countries act peacefully, and do not bring harm to other nations.

Now, sometimes I'll agree that the UN might not do what some people think they should, but on the whole the UN is a good thing, and is so effective because the member nations RESPECT ITS POWERS. The US needs to do this as well.

People have mentioned that the US is the police of the world. This is at least somewhat true. However, the US has assumed the job by its own accord. No one asked you to do it. So, now that you are, the US is going to get involved in all sorts of nasty business, and has (and probably will again) be attacked by "terrorists" who resent the US for trying to tell them what to do.

Maybe if the US acted through the UN more, some problems could be averted, and many many lives could be saved (and I don't just mean American lives - I mean lives of human beings, which is what WE ALL ARE).

The U.N. was chartered to solve conflicts peacefully through negotiations....peacekeepers would be sent to ensure the measures were carried out peacefully. Now being the policeman in the world, when there's a problem....nations turn to the U.S. as we have a greater number of both natural and financial resources to handle different situations. Yes, countries like Russia are wealthy with natural resources but they do not have the capital to use them, much less do anything these days. This policeman of the world is partly due to the fault of foreign policy, a lot of resentment is due to actions like supporting Israel amongst many things and in Iraq, it also involves OIL. Little things that drive the global economy. Iraq cannot export oil...if you take it over, to rebuild it, start making money off of producing oil. It really does come down to this. Playing policeman of the world takes its toll on our Military personnel. Morale stinks....for example thanks to the Iraq issue the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln CVBG (Carrier Battle Group...one CVN/CV, 2 CGs, 2-3 DDG, 2-3 DDs, 2-4 FFG's....look at world navies today- website, don't know actual link) was at the end of a deployment, well guess what, they were ordered to stay in region. It must bite because I don't know about you but after 6 months at sea, I'd definately want to see my family.

i personally think that the whole reason for this war on iraq is that the bush administration is obviously having trouble finding osama bin laden, so now they have to put a new face on the war on terrorism in order to keep people's interest...has anyone else noticed that there has been nothing on the news or in bush's addresses about osama bin laden or afghanistan in quite a while?? didn't think so...i also think that bush feels like if he can succeed where his predecessors (including his father) have failed, then he's assured reelection...it's all about the politics people...

the way i see it, war only leads to bad things. people die in wars, and when life is wasted like that, it's only bad. sure, the economy goes up in a war, but i'd rather have a bad economy than a war. oil, well, it's a non-renewable resource. i say we take the chance now to get used to NOT using oil, maybe find some other resources, such as fuel cell cars, and solar pannals on every house to help provide power. they'll pay for themselves eventually, no?

i think that the whole notion of a war will only hurt the US more. if we attack iraq, it gives the "terrorists" (who have, as far as i'm concerned, won the war, at least for the time being) even more of a reason to come and knock down some more buildings. or maybe this time they'll just knock some planes out of the sky. or maybe something else that will do even more. end result is, if we attack iraq, we are inviting them to attack us in retaliation. i don't want to be in a blood fued, and i'm sure no one else wants to either.

People who say that war is "NEVER the answer" generally do not even know what the question was...

Had we not had a Civil War, who knows where "civil rights" would be?!?

hmmm, I'm not 18 . . .but im 17. I know they didn't draft my uncle for 'Nam till he got kicked out of Harvard, so maybe being accepted into a college will make me inelligible.

Although, morally I am repulsed by the thougt, it is very unfair, like in the Civil War when both Northerners and Southerners could buy their way out. But hell, I don't wanna get my $@#$@#$@# blown to sh*t by a five year old suicide bomber. If they let me out count me out.

Current U.S. Senators who served in the military - 41
Current U.S. Representatives who served in the military - 113

Thats kinda funny, 'cause all the civil war did was abolish slavery. The civil rights movements were in the 60's and 70's.... thats the 1960's and 1970's - about a century AFTER the civil war.

Gilligan, I see you decided to rant about freedom. How free are you if you can be forced to kill people you don't want to kill?

And furthermore, how can a draft be justified in an offensive campaign? I agree that Saddam must be ousted, but don't you agree it would be a much better idea to try to instigate a revolt against him, harnessing the ill-ease of the Iraqis who do not like his regime (and there are many that don't)? If you are aware of the aftermath of the gulf war you'd know just how many people in Iraq are eager to fight him; they just need a little help. But, drafting people who don't want to fight into an armed conflict in which we are bringing the war to someone else, who wouldn't bring open war to us anyway (The reason Saddam wants W.M.D.'s is so he can exert control over the middle-east. If he was so desperate to attack the U.S.... well he's had biological weapons for years. He wants control, power. He wouldn't be so stupid as to ignore Mutually Assured Destruction)? I disagree. If Bush wants to push outward with his political agenda let him do it with volunteers. We have a large segment of our population, who would love to do whatever he asks, no matter what it is.

Honestly, how can a fan of Vonnegut possibly justify a draft in an offensive engagement? The mind boggles.

Let's try this again: 5 million reserves = no draft.

I could see there being a draft if Saddam decides he wants to march an army up through Mexico and invade the US from the south. But until that happens, I'm pretty sure there isn't going to be a draft.

Also: You are all forgetting that the war HAS NOT STARTED YET. Do you all honestly think that Bush wants to go to war? He has left it up to Iraq to make the decision, and he has the U.N. behind him in this action...

Eddie - I don't think this thread is about the draft anymore... it's more about how CD feels about armed conflict with Iraq.

Caleb - about do I think Bush really wants to go to war with Iraq - yes, yes I do. Aside from the finishing-off-what-his-father-left-off business (which at most, I think is a half truth), theres the entire United-States-being-just-a-bully. Lets face it - America has the most powerful military right now. The problem is we don't want to give that power up. "Weapons of Mass Destruction?" Ha, thats just a cliche that the American media came up. Where was the US in stopping India from obtaining "weapons of mass destruction?" What about Pakistan?

[sarcasm] "Oh, but those countries aren't run by obviously evil dictators that want to use the weapons of mass destruction to obliterate the world!" [/sarcasm]

What about the entire India-Pakistan Kashmir conflict? Just a few months ago, those two were just about to start lobbin' nukes at each other. I don't know about you, but that shows me those two are just as bad as Saddam when it comes to handleing "weapons of mass destruction." What if we did something to piss one of them off. Is it so outrageous to think that they would begin to threaten us with lobbing a few nukes over? How come the United States wasn't threatening to invade and overthrow either of those two?

What about North Korea? We think they have nuclear weapons, and coincidentally, there are no future plans of military conflict against them, even though North Korea is one of the largest sponsors of terrorism.

Alright, so what is my point? My point is we're still holding on to century old Imperialistic beliefs. We [Americans] believe that we're still the most powerful country in the world, and any threat to that is painted as evil, or in light of recent fads, any such threat is referred to as "acts of terrorism" or "supporting terrorism" or something like that, and so, we obviously need to send our knights in shining armor to go and eliminate the danger to the world community (read: America).

The fact is, having nuclear weapons is like having an ace of spades in your sleeve - you have something to bargain with. America needs to wake up and sees that we no longer are the single most powerful military in the world. The (First) Gulf War took a coalition of MANY countries and a while to win a relatively tiny piece of land. Even then, we didn't overthrow Saddam. The thing about nukes is once you get them, you have something on the bargaining table until America changes her outlook on the world.

Now, about Saddam, do I think he'd actually use nukes on us? I don't know. If he did, there would be the rest of the world he'd have to face. How would everyone else react to us being nuked? Some would probably side with him, some would attack him. Where does that get us? World War Three, only this time it'll be Nuke-tastic. Honestly, I doubt Iraq nor North Korea want that. My opinion is nukes won't actually be used by Saddam - they're more of a bargaining chip. Does that mean I think Saddam is a Suzy Temple? All I know is this: what I know about Saddam is from the American media, which is influenced by the actions of America, which currently want Saddam out. My point is everything we know about Saddam is biased. Everything you hear is biased one way or another. You can't escape it. The real trick is to look past the bias and make your own opinion.

"Where was the US in stopping India from obtaining "weapons of mass destruction?" What about Pakistan?"

You will have to ask Bush 1 and Clinton about that...don't blame Bush 2.

A war on Iraq, if done how Bush proposes, would not require nuclear weapons. If we do not stop their quest to obtain weapons of mass destruction, I think it is apparent that no one will. Iraq, if left alone, WILL obtain nuclear weapons...similarly to how India and Pakistan did. NK was left alone for too long; in fact, Clinton actually helped them get nukes! And you are right: once a country has nukes, it changes EVERYTHING. I don't think our president (and about 61% of the American people) are willing to give Iraq such a chance...

BTW: I will openly admit to having a desire for America to be #1 in the world in power, influence, morality, military, etc.

Then I feel sorry for your arrogance and the rest of the 54-some percent of America who still aprove of Bush's actions (you should double check your latest polls).

Grow up - America isn't the right culture. How do you even define the right culture? The right culture is what YOU believe in. Just because YOU believe in it, does that give you the right to force your believes upon other people by penalty of death? The fact is, if there WAS only one right culture, then the entire human race would be like America, or like China, or like Russia 15 years ago, or like some tribal community in the middle of the African jungles. Everyone would be the same, and you wouldn't have diversity. But, because there IS diversity, that obviously tells you something: THERE IS NO RIGHT CULTURE!

The fact is, everyone is different.

You need to learn that.

You need to deal with that.

If you don't, as far as I'm concerened, you are exactly like Saddam. After all, what makes you any different? You believe YOUR cause is the superior cause, the right cause, and if you had your way, everyone who stands against your Fight would be dead. More people have died in the name of g/God(s)(esses)/<insert your religious belief here> throughout the history of the world than all other causes combined. You wanna hear some other names that "openly admit to have a desire for <insert your Cause here> to be #1 in the world in power, influence, morality, military, etc."? Here's a few from just the last 75-some-odd years: Osama Bin Laden, Chairman Mao, Stalin, Hitler

Thats the problem in the world - nobody gives a $@#$@#$@#$@# about other cultures. Apparently that includes you, Caleb.

Like I said on my first post in this thread, I participate in FIRST in hopes of using what I learned to better help the world or people in general. Not help peel their splattered remains off some brick wall. Some of the opinions on this thread disgust me. Screw this thread, forget about the world, I'm just going back to building some robots.

*walks away in anger*

Then this thread is off topic and has become null and void. It should be closed.



http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...highlight=Iraq


There has already been lots of discussion about this already. In the end, it turned into one big argument that lead to people insulting eachother.