Jeslek
Banned
From www.rightwingnews.com:
Here are just a few of the questions I've asked myself about the 'War on Terrorism' along with the answers I believe to be correct. Ask yourself these same questions and see if our answers are the same...
- Does 'state support' of terrorism increase the chances that the United States will be hit with a or high casualty biological attack or nuclear attack? (Yes, by a lot)
- Can we cripple terrorist groups with global reach without ending the 'state support' of terrorism? (No)
- How important is crippling terrorist groups with global reach? (As important as winning WW2)
- Can we convince nations that do support terrorism to stop doing so through diplomatic means, sanctions, etc (Some yes, most no)
- Which would likely be more costly in lives, capital, and effort, invading Iran, Iraq, etc, or dealing with a nuclear explosion or high casualty biological attack in a major city in the United States? (Nuclear explosion or high casualty biological attack by far)
- Is it worth the difficulties and possible casualties of military action in order to have a greatly reduced chance that the US will be the victim of a nuclear or high casualty biological attack (Yes)
- Would replacing the governments of Iran, Iraq, etc, lead to a much smaller likelihood that they'd aiding terrorist groups against us? (Yes)
- Would invading Iraq, Iran, etc., make other nations more likely or less likely to support groups that want to launch terrorist attacks against America? (Less)
- If we do nothing and the United States is hit with future terrorist attacks, are we likely to get more support from our 'allies' than we're getting this time around? (No)
- If nations like Iran, Iraq, etc, were to stop supporting terrorist groups and stop seeking nuclear weapons, would there be any need for us to invade them? (No)
- If we overthrew the governments of Iraq, Iran, etc, would the people of those nations be better or worse off? (Better)
- Which is more important, having a significantly larger percentage of people in the world who approve of the United States over the short-term or having a greatly decreased risk of having more 911s in the United States (Having a greatly decreased risk of having more 911s).
If you came up with the same answers I did, it's quite likely that you support invading Iraq just as I do...
I honestly wish Bush would stop "talking" about the war and just get it over with. People are tired of seeing it constantly on the news and he seems incapable of taking action. :mad2: Even Israel told the US "get it over with already!"
Here are just a few of the questions I've asked myself about the 'War on Terrorism' along with the answers I believe to be correct. Ask yourself these same questions and see if our answers are the same...
- Does 'state support' of terrorism increase the chances that the United States will be hit with a or high casualty biological attack or nuclear attack? (Yes, by a lot)
- Can we cripple terrorist groups with global reach without ending the 'state support' of terrorism? (No)
- How important is crippling terrorist groups with global reach? (As important as winning WW2)
- Can we convince nations that do support terrorism to stop doing so through diplomatic means, sanctions, etc (Some yes, most no)
- Which would likely be more costly in lives, capital, and effort, invading Iran, Iraq, etc, or dealing with a nuclear explosion or high casualty biological attack in a major city in the United States? (Nuclear explosion or high casualty biological attack by far)
- Is it worth the difficulties and possible casualties of military action in order to have a greatly reduced chance that the US will be the victim of a nuclear or high casualty biological attack (Yes)
- Would replacing the governments of Iran, Iraq, etc, lead to a much smaller likelihood that they'd aiding terrorist groups against us? (Yes)
- Would invading Iraq, Iran, etc., make other nations more likely or less likely to support groups that want to launch terrorist attacks against America? (Less)
- If we do nothing and the United States is hit with future terrorist attacks, are we likely to get more support from our 'allies' than we're getting this time around? (No)
- If nations like Iran, Iraq, etc, were to stop supporting terrorist groups and stop seeking nuclear weapons, would there be any need for us to invade them? (No)
- If we overthrew the governments of Iraq, Iran, etc, would the people of those nations be better or worse off? (Better)
- Which is more important, having a significantly larger percentage of people in the world who approve of the United States over the short-term or having a greatly decreased risk of having more 911s in the United States (Having a greatly decreased risk of having more 911s).
If you came up with the same answers I did, it's quite likely that you support invading Iraq just as I do...
I honestly wish Bush would stop "talking" about the war and just get it over with. People are tired of seeing it constantly on the news and he seems incapable of taking action. :mad2: Even Israel told the US "get it over with already!"