NationStates Jolt Archive

"USA said long ago it has successfully test-fired long-
range 'strategic missiles' and delivered them to their armed forces,
saying they are now prepared to deal with any regional threats and all the big powers."
"USA's new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin,
Russia, Afrika, North- and South America, Asia, Australia, arctic and antarctic areas -according to weapons and intelligence analysts."

Time to post in existing threads instead of opening new ones

I vote no, unless they strike first.

But they have struck first already!

American justification of going into Iraq: They have weapons of mass destruction (USA has stockpiles of chemical and nuclear weapons), have proven in the past that they are willing to use them (the USA is the only country to have used a nuke in anger) and they were resisting UN weapons inspectors (the USA vetoed a motion to inspect it's weapons sites).

Surely by the USA has a right to invade Iraq, then the rest of the world has a right to invade them? And Iraq didn't even have the weapons!

I vote no, unless they strike first.

But they have struck first already!

American justification of going into Iraq: They have weapons of mass destruction (USA has stockpiles of chemical and nuclear weapons), have proven in the past that they are willing to use them (the USA is the only country to have used a nuke in anger) and they were resisting UN weapons inspectors (the USA vetoed a motion to inspect it's weapons sites).

Surely by the USA has a right to invade Iraq, then the rest of the world has a right to invade them? And Iraq didn't even have the weapons!

Bring it in. :D

*somewhat more serious tone* Seriosuly, the U.S.A. is not the only country with chemical and biological weapons. You're not going off on Russia. Or Britain. Or France. One of the reasons why you're not going off on them is legitimate: They didn't lead the war against Iraq on the basis of a lie. The second and(in my opinion) completely erroneous reason you're going off on the U.S. is because you think the U.S. is against these weapons of mass destruction.

We're not. Never were. Probably never will be. The U.S. fights against two things when it comes to WMDs: The proliferation of them. The sale of them by desperate factions to desperate factions. Our biggest fear is NOT SOuth Korea getting the Bomb. Our biggest fear is who the nearly bankrupt government with the starving population might sell them to. Our fear isn't that Iran might get The Bomb. Our biggest fear is that some wacko with an agenda might get his hands on it.

Iraq has already shown that it'll use chemical weapons against people. Even it's OWN people. And there were links(barely, I'll admit) to Al Qaeda.

I've never questioned the need to invade Iraq. I have always questioned it's TIMING. The U.S. should have waited. Built international support. Given the U.N. time to exhaust all diplomatic options. There was no reason to think that anything would have changed in six months. Or a year. There was no reason to think that the clock was ticking. But make no doubt: Chances are, the U.S. would still have invaded Iraq by now. Just with U.N. approval. Which makes worlds of difference!

And after the US, we need to institute regime change in other countries that have WMD including nuclear weapons, and ignore UN resolutions, and use military force against their own citizens. Like Israel.

Bring it in. :D

*somewhat more serious tone* Seriosuly, the U.S.A. is not the only country with chemical and biological weapons. You're not going off on Russia. Or Britain. Or France. One of the reasons why you're not going off on them is legitimate: They didn't lead the war against Iraq on the basis of a lie.

...

Our biggest fear is NOT SOuth Korea getting the Bomb. Our biggest fear is who the nearly bankrupt government with the starving population might sell them to. Our fear isn't that Iran might get The Bomb. Our biggest fear is that some wacko with an agenda might get his hands on it.

Iraq has already shown that it'll use chemical weapons against people. Even it's OWN people. And there were links(barely, I'll admit) to Al Qaeda.



For the record:

- the UK did go to war on the basis of non-existent WMDs and I for one think the Prime Minister knew there were none.

- South Korea is an ally of the US, and it doesn't have a starving population. You mean North Korea.

- There were absolutely no links between Al Qaeda and Baathist Iraq. Which isn't to say that they wouldn't sell each other nuclear technology if they had it, which they didn't.

- Is Dubya not a wacko with an agenda?

iLock

No need for two exact same topics.

Topic is being discussed here

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=360840

Stephanie
Game Moderator