The Moderate's Club

**kiwitt** · 07-19-2005, 00:48

Originally Posted by kagemusha

Does anyone else have an opinion about would it have been a better idea for US to attack Syria or Iran,instead Iraq?

Pre-emptive "Attacking" is not "moderate in my view. However, if either country actually attacks another with military forces, then I believe a force should step in to defend.

**Kagemusha** · 07-19-2005, 14:27

Originally Posted by kiwitt

Pre-emptive "Attacking" is not "moderate in my view. However, if either country actually attacks another with military forces, then I believe a force should step in to defend.

Maybe we have different view of being moderate.To me being moderate is that i can have opinions even extreme ones no matter if they are from left or right.

**kiwitt** · 07-19-2005, 22:17

Originally Posted by kagemusha

Maybe we have different view of being moderate.To me being moderate is that i can have opinions even extreme ones no matter if they are from left or right.

I still think attacking another country is "extreme" is my view. However, you can raise the "idea", and ask for feedback. I believe as a "moderate", we should have a bit more analysis to the question, before making a stand.

Syria: Have they attacked the US; No. Will they; Probably not. In the past; Can't say. If so, why was no action taken then.

Iran: Have they attacked the US recently; No. Will they; Probably not. In the past; Yes, but that was only against a few hostages, by some radical elements, whipped up by the revolution, who were later released. It is now 25 years on.

Iraq: Have they attacked the US; No. Would they have; Probably not. In the past; Yes, but they were pretty much defeated militarily. So I don't think they would have attacked the US.

**Kagemusha** · 07-19-2005, 22:35

Originally Posted by kiwitt

I still think attacking another country is "extreme" is my view. However, you can raise the "idea", and ask for feedback. I believe as a "moderate", we should have a bit more analysis to the question, before making a stand.

My replies are so short,because im Finnish and we are raised from childhood to use as little words as possible to make your point.I dont mean to be ruud or anything like that.

Originally Posted by )
[B

Syria:[/B] Have they attacked the US; No. Will they; Probably not. In the past; Can't say. If so, why was no action taken then.

Iran: Have they attacked the US recently; No. Will they; Probably not. In the past; Yes, but that was only against a few hostages, by some radical elements, whipped up by the revolution, who were later released. It is now 25 years on.

Iraq: Have they attacked the US; No. Would they have; Probably not. In the past; Yes, but they were pretty much defeated militarily. So I don't think they would have attacked the US.

I base my stand to that while Iraq may have felt to US as an easy picking.I dont understand the attack as an logigal continuation of the War on Terror.Why i supported the US attack in Afghanistan was that there was terrorist camps allower Afghanistan.And if they would have started to pressure Syria or Iran.I believe it would have gotten support from international community.Maybe attacking them wouldnt have had to happend in that scenario.My point to all this is that i see that religious terrorism in all of its forms shoud be destroyd.Because people who only preach hate should be shutted up.

**kiwitt** · 07-19-2005, 23:08

According to people here the only country out of the three you mentioned here with a "legal" reason to attack was Iraq. The attack on "Iraq" is not part of the "War on Terrorism". Saddam did not support terrorists, he just breached the terms of the "ceasefire" conditions as set at in the "Hague Convention".

**Kagemusha** · 07-19-2005, 23:24

Originally Posted by kiwitt

According to people here the only country out of the three you mentioned here with a "legal" reason to attack was Iraq. The attack on "Iraq" is not part of the "War on Terrorism". Saddam did not support terrorists, he just breached the terms of the "ceasefire" conditions as set at in the "Hague Convention".

But the US is saying that infact it is part of War on terrorism.And that i think my friend is a false statement.So im kind of wierd im against the war in Iraq but in favor against the war on terrorism.You are right that my first statement was vague(spelling).I think if US would have tryed put pressure against Syria it would have benefitted more in war on terrorism.Either Syria would have given terrorist suspects to military tribunal to Hague,or UN would have allowed an attack against it.Same goes with Iran.You have to remember what huge internationall favour they had on war on terror prior The Attack on Iraq.

**kiwitt** · 07-19-2005, 23:46

Just because the US is saying it does mean it is true and supported by facts. However, it may have caused more "terrorism". Yes, pressure could have been applied to Syria to give up their terrorists.