Do you feel it is un-American not wanting war?

Question

I HATE and do not want war, but if war is the "last" resort why play with the attitude of "humane, fair or sypathetic"? I feel this conflict is a Vietnam and Korean echo, no real commitment just a finger shaking at the world. Again I HATE war but if war is the last resort "all" should fear that decsion against them. Believe it is the last resort and finish or get out. Disagree?

Answer 1

The invasion of Iraq was also a violation of the UN treaty that all US presidents must ratify. Countries that adhere to the UN treaty cannot be the aggressor in a conventional conflict, we have to wait to be attacked. 911 doesn't cut it because those responsible were based out of Afghanistan. Conventional warfare is a last resort and unconventional warfare would be the last thing any of us ever saw. We need to phase ourselves out of Iraq and let the Iraqi's sink or swim on their own. It is not un-American to not want war.

Answer 2

It is not un-American to not want a justified war. In WWII we were attacked. In WWI our ships were attacked. In Korea we were part of the UN forces committed to ending the conflict in Korea. (There is just a cease fire and no armistice there now). Viet nam was a fiasco we should not have been in. The current war was wrong in several ways. Every possible road of diplomacy needs to be used before going to war. Unfortunately our cowboy president with his itchy trigger finger couldn't wait. His people convinced many Americans that it was linked to 9/11 and the right thing to do. Those who were paying attention knew better and have been against it from the beginning. War should be the last resort. In today's world war should not be a go it alone or with only a few allies proposition. As in Gulf War I when the majority of the world was supporting the effort to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The US was the main power involved but there were many more. It had the blessings of other nations because it was in response to a cry for help from a nation that had just been invaded by a neighbor. Nothing of the sort happened in Gulf War II. We are still there in a quagmire while the one responsible for 9/11 and other attacks is on the lam somewhere in the region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I have always said. I am not a pacifist. I believe a nation should go to war if justified. The war in Iraq is not justified. I am opposed to it.

Answer 3

It's not unpatriotic, it's expressing your own freedom of speech. And believe it or not, many Americans are disliking this war in Iraq and totally hating on Bush for it. I agree tha this is just another Vietnam were in, in the case of our soliders just puttying around while the goal of this war - capturing Osama and ending terrorism or threats thereof - has yet to be achieved. I'm thinking maybe there would be a NEED for war if all these governments were strong enough to put these terrorists in a nice strong cell to begin with instead of just spewing out all this crap about their religion.

Answer 4

Rationally, one would say, we should have gone full force into Afganistan, plain and simple.

This begins the premise of this entire failure.

Someones agenda called for invading ocupying Iraq, and someone knew what would happen if we did try to take over IRAQ.
Its not difficult to realize it would be KAOS, if examining the fact that Sunni and shiates have despised the other.

Now, someone, everyone knows who, decided they wanted to do their own thing for america.

Every american wanted retaliation after 9/11
BUSH capitilaized on it and led us into IRAQ!

War is the last resort to a rational, mind, but Bush has proving his greed and own interest is more important than rationale or Global stability

Answer 5

Clinton had regime change in iraq on the table. This is nothing new. Even Rummy cursed saddam the day of 9/11. This has been planned for some time and 9/11 opened the door which PNAC would call "a pearl harbor event". How convenient.

Answer 6

I don't feel it is Un-American, there are places that a war would be a good idea, but this war wasn't a good idea, and was based on lies and deceipt. We were supposed to be searching for the people responsible for 9/11 and we were taken off the trail to go to war for one mans personal agenda. Whether Bush went after Saddam to get even for what Saddam did to his father, or to give himself a refuge for after his term as president is over, it doesn't matter.
To continue this war is to continue the killing of innocent troops and innocent people, for one man's goal. Very selfish of him, and for you to feel you don't want this war, is your sixth sense kicking in, like the rest of us, and your hair on the back of your neck is standing up, cause you know it's just plain wrong.

Answer 7

I think war is necessary if you are under attack. The problem we get into when we start pre-empitve wars is that we can not go in all guns blazing and take care of business. You cannot say you are liberating a country and kill half of it's citizens, as you end up looking like an ****** to the rest of the world. I oppose wars in most situations that could be solved diplomatically, but also think that situations like WW2 needed to be addressed militarily.

Answer 8

Nope, i agree. Very few actually want or desire war. It is the last resort. I also agree if we decide to go then we must commit fully to victory. That lack of commitment was the major problem in Viet Nam.

Answer 9

To the first person who posted: War was not a "first resort." Maybe you are too young to remember, but the UN negotiated with Saddam for about twelve years. He didn't cooperate, to say the least.

To the original poster: It's not un-American to not want war, but I suppose it all depends on why you don't support the war.

Answer 10

how could a war of choice ever be a "last resort"? Maybe if Iraqi troops had conquered all of the USA except Chicago, and were closing in on Chicago, we could speak of a "last resort"