WAR? OR TO NOT GO TO WAR?

What does every one think?

We could go and win--teach Iraq a lesson OR not go but stand the chance of being attacked horifically again....It's a tough decision....

You know.. I would not like to see this country go to war.. because war brings famine, disease, heartache, starvation and death. I hope that the involved parties find a livable resolution to their disagreements.

..and well, if not, I hope for a solution which benefits the majority, and if that means going to war, then sadly, so be it.

War is not the answer. It seems to be that George Bush is trying to create another world enemy, just like the Americans did with Russia and China a few decades ago. I'm skeptical about this 'war' thing. I dont trust Bush or his cronies; i believe he is a war monger and finds no other way of compromise. Its a sensitive issue. While i believe terrorism is wrong in that it punishes people who dont chose to live under Allah, i certainly don't condone fighting. This world is so unsafe and its all thanks to the arsehole who invented the atom bomb. Thanks alot dude...

I feel extremely unsafe being in Australia and dont, in the least, appreciate being dragged into a war with America. What did Bush do for us when hundred of Australians were killed and injured in Bali? It just doesn't seem fair that we, Australia, have to go to war for America when we are really a harmless nation. The only reason we are now targetted is because John Howard, against the will of a lot of people here, took it upon himself to support Bush, for reasons i am still yet to understand.

I will just make it clear that it is not Americans i dont like, it's their government, and ours for that matter. The only winners in the world at the moment are the government; we are all proletariats. We are slaves under their regimes. I bet THEY sleep well at night... Hey, its okay for them, they have bunkers they can go to if war breaks out. We are just pawns in their little games. Wake up guys, we are living in a slave-age. We have no rights or freedoms.

Okay, If I answered this question from the stand point of a Libra.. I may as well conclude that our sign symbolizes love and most of all-- justice, and although libras are 'supposedly' known as peace-lovers, we are the very ones who will- without remorse- turn around and squash the offenders with our own iron fists... so I suppose, when you think about it this way, we are a very militant sign. [At this point, I would like to clarify my position on this war---I do not wish at all for war, but if war is necessary for bringing about order and peace, then, sadly, so be it. ] You know, sometimes, war is necessary.
Did you know that Hitler was born a Taurus with a Libra ascendant? He had persistence and guts all in one bag. Look at the damage that this supposed 'peace- loving' individual did to the Jews.. and you're right kenny G, what would he have done, if he'd not been stopped when he was..—... I think somewhere in the area of 6 million Jews were brutally murdered by this man and his army.
Okay, just to check myself, am I making any sense..

offenders like this man above should be held accountable for his crimes.. I'm afraid I'm feeling the heart of stone on this one.. I wish we had more info on what's really going on here in order to make a more informed decision about this.

Jaya,

I liked what you wrote--you make a lot of sense. I didn't know that about Hitler but you know what? The guy's smoking in hell right now--you can bet on it.

It really is a tough decision to make and it seems that Bush will make this choice fairly soon...didn't him or Congress have a summit meeting at the United Nations like last week or something? And oh, I almost forgot! How could we forget that Iraq AND Korea have accesss to nuclear weapons?? This is serious and VERY scary to contemplate--I mean think about it folks--one drop of a nuclear bomb could wipe out the entire Eastern seaboard--look what the atom bomb did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki....Ohhh if JFK were here today and in office--I think it would be a different administration.
And it's not just ONE nuclear bomb we're talking--it's at least two to three. So I guess this is where I stand on going to war: If it means seizing all nuclear weaponry from Iraq and Korea and crippling all military outfits from Hussein, Bin Laden and Korea-then war is necessary. These people HATE the US. They hate Americans and will stop at nothing to harm us again. Well, as I once heard before.. (and I think it has to do with swimming with sharks for some reason) "Get to them first before thay get to you."

The thing is, even if you get all their weapons now, who's to say they won't produce more in the future? Seizing their weapons seems like a temporary solution. Why does Iraq etc. hate the U.S so much? I wish the U.S and the middle east could find a way to make peace.

I just read on Yahoo news that China, France and Russia will NOT back us up with Iraq--it seems that we are losing more and more allies.

Libra Girl, regarding your last post--from what I have read in the past year since 9-11, the military such as the Army and Marines have the abilty to infiltrate Afghanistani and Iraqi government operated labs and industrial companies that make these bombs--the US military has the ability to capture and arrest the citizens of those countires and remove all material that is used to make these bombs and weapons. In other words, we have the ability to confiscate. This is how we would stop them. Remember, these countries are pretty poor--I don't think thier bomb and weapons warehouses have the updated, high-tech security that the Pentagon has.

And think about it: All Iraq has to do is place one nuclear bomb onto a Boeing 747, fly it over Cape Cod Bay and then--goodbye East Coast. It's A LOT scarier then most people think--the possibility of it all--I think. That's why I think it is better to get to them first, before they get to us. Otherwise, we're sitting ducks again.

Another thing....

It angers me that Korea of all countries has access to nuclear weaponry after we finally ended the Cold War with them in 1992- We the US, signed a Peace Treaty with Korea ten years ago and then they go stab us in the back.

Yes, i see your point. I must admit, as time is going by, i am more 'for' the U.S invading, but not necessarily killing in, Iraq in order to confiscate their weapons. Crashing a plane loaded with a nuke, regardless of the setting, would be a tragedy indeed. From what i understand, in my limited experience, the radical muslims want to convert the world to Islam. This is not going to happen, most of us don't want to live like that, and in that case, i will fight for freedom too; the freedom to live as i choose.

The only thing i dont understand is, that if it is okay for Superpowers, such as America, China and Russia, to possess nuclear arms, why can't 'lessor' countries do it too? What gives the U.S, China and Russia the right to possess nuclear arms, but no one else? Dont get me wrong, im not in favour of the middle eastern coutries possessing NA's, just curious.

We shouldn't even be owning any nuclear devices! I don't think it's right for even OUR country to have access. So I guess if we have nuclear weaponry--naturally Russia and China and Korea--as well as Iraq are going to find out and try to "match up" to the American defensive line. It's not right. I guess it's sort of asking for trouble--however--I think we as a nation are far more rational and educated to deal with than the Iraqis--all they seem to live by is violence. And Korea being a poor country may be just the same. A Peace Treaty with Iraqi leaders would most likely be futile--you just can't reason with these guys and I think that's why Bush and Congress are trying to seize the nuclear weapons from Iraq. They can't be trusted at this point. We know that they think of us as "vulnerable".

I understand what you are saying about not being able to reason with these guys. I s'pose there's no point getting all moralistic and on my high horse about the why's and wherefore's of America's problems with the middle east; the fact is, that if they have nuclear weaponry, we're all in trouble. I wouldn't put it past any of them to drop a bomb on us or you. The thing that still worries me is that Australia was dragged into this thing unnecesarily and then our prime minister has the audacity to announce the devestating news that we are extremely vulnerable to nuclear attack, like he played no part in its transpirance. He is the one that has got us into this mess and now he claims no responsibility. Im serious, there should be a psych test for politicians. Or an integrity test at least; im sure they would all fail dismally.

I agree with you, no country should have weaponry, little lone, nuclear weaponry. I suppose it all comes down to the part of human nature that is never happy with what it has, is greedy and is jealous of the land other nations own. I truelly do not believe that we are ABLE to live in peace anyway. I wish we could, i am sick of it all.

So, here I am sitting in my chair at home all nice and safe like the rest of you and listening to Stars and Stripes Forever because we play a lot of Sousa marches in my school band. (Well, the guy wrote a couple hundred of them, so they might as well be played right?) In the midst of this, while finishing off my hot cocoa because it's snowing outside (November 5th! Snow! It's incredulous! I just hope it's still around for my birthday and the annual ski trip...) and because I'm hoping it'll clear all that gunk out of my throat (being home sick has got to be the greatest contradiction of all) I suddenly come across this series of posts. Quite ironic, no?

Anyway, the actual meat of the post finally comes, after all these commas and fancy openers:

The reason these countries can't be trusted is because they would use their nukes to gain advantage over our country. Bush, I've always thought, was unfit to lead a country in such a situation is this. But, then, is anyone? Abe Lincoln wasn't popular even among the Union States a century and a half ago- he won both elections by some pretty narrow margins! The idealism of that era was what made him famous. Same thing with George Washington, if you want a trip through military history. All of his peers describe him as cold and unapproachable, and two-tongued about his ambitions. The way I see it, the modern world is no more difficult to live in than the world in past times. It's not like there aren't options. History has taught me one thing: if you can get enough supporters, than you can effectively argue any point you feel like arguing. One can either vollunteer to fight, if they feel it's inevitable and therefore the only solution, or one could wait to be drafted when things REALLY get out of hand (as they do at least once every few decades all throughout history in every nation that ever stood), or one could protest.

I don't know all that much about this situation, but I do know there are a lot of idealists around here who have enlisted in the US military. Any way the pie is cut, people like me are the very ones the Mid-Easterners are insanely jealous of, the epitome of the American dream. At the same time, it's also a running joke here that any nuke sent to New Hampshire, Vermont, or Maine would be a waste, and an invasion would be fruitless, since families here are twice as heavily armed just for hunting season as any militant there!

This whole situation reminds me of a quote from a play I'm in now: "Over there are some Civil War veterans. Iron flags on their graves- New Hampshire boys- had a notion the Union ought to be kept together, though they'd never seen more than fifty miles of it themselves. All they knew was the name, friends: The United States of America- and they went and died about it."

That pretty much sums up a lot of opinions here in the old Granite State- except for people like my father who grew up during the Vietnam War and hate governments unconditionally.

Oh, BTW, just in case any of you have any liking to plays and theatre, that quote was pulled from OUR TOWN by Thornton Wilder. I highly recommend reading it, it'll be worth your while. Same with THE MATCHMAKER if you've ever seen and liked HELLO DOLLY.

Thanks Kenny, although I've been pretty down lately because I am STILL looking for full-time work since I was laid off in late June. It's getting me really down and I'm so tired of sending out resumes and letters. I will try to think of something else--another topic to bring up--hey, wait a minute--well, there you go--THE ECONOMY!! There's a topic for ya. I've learned something through my job search though: everything is based on two things: economics and politics.
Have a positive day.
Sloane

Well it looks like Hussein has agreed to hand over the weaponry--this including nuclear weaponry I hope. This is amazing news because I didn't think this man was reasonable in the slightest. This would never have happened 11 years ago when George Senior was in office.

All we need is for Korea and Russia to give up thier nukes also. (This) Friday was Iraqi's deadline given by the UN to hand over all nuclear weaponry and therefore resist the act of war. Unbeleivable huh? Maybe Hussein KNEW if he didn't we'd REALLY kick his ass.

Things may just may get intense now with 25,000 troups deployed in the mid-east. I still think we need to capture Hussein and his henchmen--seize all nuclear weaponry from his labs and military--we failed to get him 10 years ago so now we have even a better reason. The man must be stopped or else our country will be maliciously attacked again. Nuclear arms are no joke. Sorry folks, but I have to say I am pro-war.

Yeepp, it really is that scary.

Hi Kenny!

I've been around. Job hunting as usual--temping---volunterring at an animal shelter--'cuz I love dogs. So I have been busy. I DO have a couple of interviews brewing so we'll see what happens in the future. With this darn Mercury Retrograde going on until the 22nd, I have been advised to not make any confirmed decisions so it's getting tough. I'll clue you in later.