Who against?

[kuifje75]

The decision to use nuclear bomb will bring grave consequences.
Nuking Iraq will kill millions, and is a very inhumane solution. We do not have solid friendships with other Arab countries, and I am sure that they will become angry and be against us if we nuked Iraq. Don't forget, we would get problems from other countries who signed nuclear ban treaty, which Bush backed out from. We would become the least popular country in this planet if we nuked Iraq.

What we are doing is much more "acceptable" (for the lack of better words) in an international view. We are bombing government buildings and military targets. We are trying our best not to kill the civilian lives. Using nuclear bomb would destroy the lives of innocent civilians.

This is taking a long time. Bush never promised that it would be a short campaign. Once the army reach Baghdad, they will have to fight "urban warfare" where all the "bad" Iraqis are hiding in buildings, shooting at soldiers. It is much different than battles in the desert. It's not a simple war like we would like to think of it to be.

 

[SyrOrange]

Originally posted by VamPyroX
I'm neutral... I do think that war is a waste of time. I also think that if Bush really wanted to get rid of Saddam, he would have done it already by simply nuking Iraq!

then the UN would be accusing US of having weapons of mass destruction. That wouldn't look good on our resumes right ? That's why we're limiting it to ground war.

 

[SyrOrange]

Originally posted by kuifje75
The decision to use nuclear bomb will bring grave consequences.
Nuking Iraq will kill millions, and is a very inhumane solution. We do not have solid friendships with other Arab countries, and I am sure that they will become angry and be against us if we nuked Iraq. Don't forget, we would get problems from other countries who signed nuclear ban treaty, which Bush backed out from. We would become the least popular country in this planet if we nuked Iraq.

What we are doing is much more "acceptable" (for the lack of better words) in an international view. We are bombing government buildings and military targets. We are trying our best not to kill the civilian lives. Using nuclear bomb would destroy the lives of innocent civilians.

This is taking a long time. Bush never promised that it would be a short campaign. Once the army reach Baghdad, they will have to fight "urban warfare" where all the "bad" Iraqis are hiding in buildings, shooting at soldiers. It is much different than battles in the desert. It's not a simple war like we would like to think of it to be.

AGREED!!!

 

[illustrator]

98% of my hometown (Midland, TX) are support for war.

Of course, it's Bush's ex-home.

 

[Wheel-Man]

me support war bec my friends who r in maries... Barry Young and Kris Young.. boths r brother... i not sure if they r in war :-\

 

[MDCodeRedFreak]

Originally posted by BostonIceFire
I am not really in favor of the war but at the same time I am not against it. Whatever happens it happens for a reason.

I'm surprised they have not really nuked Iraq in a big way yet, they are doing it little by little, what's the wait for?

WHy are they taking such a long time?

prolly cuz Bush wanna see the Iraqis suffer slowly ?? :-X

 

[Strawberry]

I'm just supporting the soldiers and their families- for their loss and worries. We are losing Americans however they will always be heros but in other words, why long war? why against war? why support war? I know some have different opinion- I'm just netural in those areas. Like I just posted in other thread, "nothing's new, history repeats itself".

 

[saxxykitty78]

Originally posted by Strawberry
I'm just supporting the soldiers and their families- for their loss and worries. We are losing Americans however they will always be heros but in other words, why long war? why against war? why support war? I know some have different opinion- I'm just netural in those areas. Like I just posted in other thread, "nothing's new, history repeats itself".

yup right on strawberry

 

[Strawberry]