(Original post by vienna95)
take a look at my last argument. normally i would expect replies challenging Iraq as a strategic target, after all that is the flaw in my point.(i even make it easy for them). instead i get back,
1 - "American Imperalistic rule because America has committed a number of war crimes."
flawed on 2 counts, a) war crimes? proven where?
b) war crimes = imperialistic?
2 - "disregard many of their former allies in purusing a goal which will ultimaltey benefit only the minority, while the majority of people pay the cost."
a) disregarded which allies? the anglosphere that roundly supported them? no. Europe where the majority of nations supported them? japan? no. israel? no.
b) benefit the minority? the US taxpayer is shelling out billions to keep the entire western world aswell as asia and parts of the middle-east protected. europe could not defend its own backyard let alone other continents. whether you agree with their policy or not. the promotion of US defence policy, is a promotion of our security and that of the democratic world.
c) cost the majority? how much is this free defense costing Europe?
3- "on the basis of Iraq being a threat and using a preemtive strike i feel its rediculous no other time has a war started on the chance some one might attack."
a)because this is not a war. and the state of Iraq was not the direct threat
b) but since your asking, the Franco-Prussian war.
4)By the way how ere they a threat no links with al-Queda