Do you think we should either finish the job in Iraq with relentless full force attacking or get out?
Jerry (Iron Priest)☮ R ☮ P ☮ 201
2007/09/21 19:57:47
|
|
|||||
|
51 votes
|
|
77% | |||
|
15 votes
|
|
23% | |||
Why even be there if we're holding back ? If our government won't let the soldiers do the job right shouldn't they come home.Our politicians on both sides of the isle don't care about right and wrong. They disagree with each other on everything ,as if they're mindless.
Top Opinion
-
Jamie (goofygirl) 2008/05/29 13:18:16Yes
+8They want stability and it took us from 1783 until 1787 to get it together, and we did not have quite the civil unrest or the population of Iraq. I think the people of Iraq want a better government, I am not stating they want a Western government, but the dictatorship has proven deadly for everyone.
http://www.commondreams.org/a...
Well, Nikki_93 you didn’t give much logic but you did give a lot of emotions.
There were two presidents that were plague by high oil prices: Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.
Why do you think as Presidents, George W. Bush would like high oil prices while Jimmy Carter wouldn’t?
If you want to tell me how much money George W. Busch and Jimmy Carter made on high oil prices, if any, I would appreciate it.
Natually, I don't expect an answer. The party doesn't allow you to deviate from the "party line."
Of course I will respond to you.
I am Canadian and do not know a great amount of American history, to be honest. What I do know is that Bush is a corrupt and selfish man who has done a lot of damage to his country.
I apologize that I do not have a direct answer to your question, however I will give you some food for thought. War leads to purposeless killing and killing without purpose is murder.
So here is my question to you, is Bush a defender or a murder?
I challenge you to answer.
First of all, I want to compliment you for your discussion. Although, I never expected you to answer my question. However, I am glad to provide a direct answer to your question.
George Bush didn’t start the war that leads to purposeless killing. You need to talk to Osama Bin Laden about that matter.
George Bush is a defender of freedom. On 911, within an hour we needlessly lost almost 3000 unarmed people. In Iraq, we lost 4000 heavily armed people in 5 years. In comparison, in Vietnam we lost almost 59,000 in 10 years.
The Vietnam War was base on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which the Government declassified a report in Dec 2005 which stated the Golf of Tonkin incident never happened. Of course, the sailors which were supposed to be involved in the incident had been saying that for years.
If you’re going to accuse George Bush of murdering 4000 then you would have to accuse Liberal President Johnson of killing 59,000. What about the rest of the presidents that were involved in wars. Are you going to accuse Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman of murder? It’s not logical.
We have not received a single attack on the USA since Sept 11. The military has almost wiped Osama Bin Laden’s forces out of Iraq and the democratically elected Iraq government is now taking c...
First of all, I want to compliment you for your discussion. Although, I never expected you to answer my question. However, I am glad to provide a direct answer to your question.
George Bush didn’t start the war that leads to purposeless killing. You need to talk to Osama Bin Laden about that matter.
George Bush is a defender of freedom. On 911, within an hour we needlessly lost almost 3000 unarmed people. In Iraq, we lost 4000 heavily armed people in 5 years. In comparison, in Vietnam we lost almost 59,000 in 10 years.
The Vietnam War was base on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which the Government declassified a report in Dec 2005 which stated the Golf of Tonkin incident never happened. Of course, the sailors which were supposed to be involved in the incident had been saying that for years.
If you’re going to accuse George Bush of murdering 4000 then you would have to accuse Liberal President Johnson of killing 59,000. What about the rest of the presidents that were involved in wars. Are you going to accuse Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman of murder? It’s not logical.
We have not received a single attack on the USA since Sept 11. The military has almost wiped Osama Bin Laden’s forces out of Iraq and the democratically elected Iraq government is now taking charge with the US militaries support. George Bush’s primary job is to defend the American people. He has doe that.
I think the bottom line question is; do Liberals want National Security or do they want to use the money to buy votes with wealth transfer programs? I am afraid the answer is; buy votes.
I have never heard of any army in history cutting and running when they were winning. I have heard of generals not following up after a battle victory but never one who cut and run.
However, I know that Liberals want to use the money being spent on national security for wealth transfer programs. The standard Liberal message is; “vote for me and I will transfer wealth to you.” You want something for nothing, like free Healthcare, vote for me.
The military is fighting two battles; cut and run Liberals and Osama Bin Laden. They beat Osama Bin Laden in Iraq. Can they beat Liberals in the U.S. to be able to finish the job or will they be forced to forfeit?
What is full force attacking going to do? All Bush did was use 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq so he could get Hussein out. And we destroyed their entire country, basically. Hussein is gone, but nothing else was really accomplished.
I don't see how much "relentless full force attacking" is going to do.
The purpose of these polls is so that people can see other people's opinions, not so that people can express their opinions, and then be told they are wrong.
I'm here; I'm willing to listen to your point of view, if you have anything intelligent to say, dahacks.
Peace,
Sarah
And no offense, but what the hell will full force attacking do? Or any type of attacking? As far as I know, there isn't really a defined "good side" or "bad side".
I'd like to inquire of you this: How do we "win" this "war"? What constitutes us winning?
We've already fucked their country up so badly, I don't think anything we can do will help these innocent people live in peace with prosperous children.
Peace
But 9/11 didn't occur because of the Iraqis. They had nothing to do with it, but Bush made it seem like there was some sort of a connection.
But that's the past. This is the present. I don't see what exactly we are fighting about. You say we are "winning this war" (well actually you said "wining" but I know what you meant) but I shall repeat myself. How are we "winning"? What are we "winning"? What are we "fighting" over? What makes this a "war"?
make no mistake about it there are people out the who want to kill us better to kill the bad guys there than than fight them one at time here. this isn't vietnam its Not 1969 the soldiers believe in what there doing.it takes a lot of guts to send men to war im sure the president hates this more than we could ever know but i believe clintons appeasement polices got us into this mess
Yes, I know about the extremists... I'm not that closed minded!
So do we know where these people are? Do we even know that they're in Iraq?