People whom oppose the war, why?

Question

I want to know the reasoning of the people who dont want the war in Iraq to continue. Lets say you guys win, everybody from Iraq is pulled out. As well as the rest of the countries. I think that it would take Taliban and Al Queida about 35 seconds to retake all the middle east. And we know what happens next, one of our planes is brought down so what do we do???? We start a war that everybody seems to be for untill we get there. So why re-elect the arguably best president ever just to say he sucks? I want to hear why you oppose this war.

You said that they didnt cry out for help for us to come because of the name "iraqi freedom". Well that could have been due to the fact that they werent allowed to have satalites in their contry without being killed. When you cant access the outer world without being torchured to death by terrorists, its hard to cry out for america to come save you. WE had to do something and Bush was right to send us. Look at it this way, in the war of Ghettysburg, 50,000+ soldiers were lost, in 3 days, day one alone was over 13,000. In the war in Iraq for however long we've been there, we've lost barely over 2,500 soldiers. that puts a different twist on it so dont say that we lose tons of people. Even losing 50,000+ people in our country today would barely dent our econamy or life as we know it, then it had to kill it. Now, our troops are armed with much better weapondry and such, they will win this war, and bush shouldent quarentee a return date, we have to win and thats that.

George bush stole the election? erm... that makes sense right??? I'm pretty sure that our nation that has risin to the best of the best can figure out who its own leader will be without screwin it up. Bush was elected. I understand being scared of losing somebody in the war, that would be the only reason i wouldent want it, but these people are heroes and have much to be proud of.
Saying the war in Iraq isnt about terrorism is like hitting somebody in the face with a dart when trying to hit a dartboard, its not even a close interpretation. What other reasons would we send people to Iraq. You may not like him but he does feel guilt. He (bush) wouldent just kill 2.5 thousand people if he didnt think that it wouldent save way more. And being opposed to all wars is impossable, the Bible says there will be wars, it must happen. This kind of thing will happen, freedom isnt free you know.

You listen to the news, that explains it. Our media is 100% liberal and it will stay that way. It opposes a war the whole dang media does so whats it do? USES YOU to serve their purpose. They want you to protest enough to Bush so that he might change his mind. I believe in Bush, hes a trusty guy, he wont do the wrong thing, he wont give in to you whom try to convince him otherwise. This guys smart, he knows whats best. And trust me media, your hypnosis wont win, the government will.

So you think that our trained soldiers who have the best training in the world will go over there and kill fools right in front of little kids. I'm sure that their smarter then that. Now, u think that if Osama is captured that the attacks will still go on. This is probably true, but it will make a great dent in the terrorists planning. They'll go into anarchy and be way less organized. We are establishing a good strong army in the middle east, when we get that their we can take out many soldiers, maybe more than 75% but we will need to help the units over there untill all is well wich could take maybe 15 years. IT DOESNT MATTER we must win the war to be safe or the public will come crying again when another plane blows up.

Answer 1

It would be different if the reason we are over there was becuz of what happened wit 9/11. that's what Bush wanted us 2 think, but WE ALL NOW know the real reason we are over there, and if u say its not then u must have blinders on.
As for us being over there, take it from me, i am a military wife. And my husband is over there. I do believe we need some of our military over there, but not the 130,000 or however many is there. that is a lot, and especially when (like my hubby) they have to be over there for a year. And there's units that's never deployed there. I don't think we need as many troops there as we do. I don't think this war is going to end until he's out of office either. What are we accomplishing there? We are still getting many many of our men/women killed, and it will continue that way. And even if we did pull all of the troops out of Iraq, do u really believe that the united States would allow another attack? c'mon now, as much security as we have now?
Look at it like this, we are over there trying to give them freedom, that most of them obviously do not want, we are trying to put our belief's on them when what they do and how they live is the way they've always known. that's like them coming here and trying 2 make us live the way they do. It would never happen! I think we need a few units to regulate over there yeah but there's no need for as many as we have there. Year long deployments are very very hard on the men/women and also their families. Of course I support my husband 110% becuz this is his job and he knows what he has to do he doesn't have a choice.. But as for supporting the so called reasons for the war i do not! As for u saying that we've barely lost 2500 ppl. WOW! how would u feel is someone u loved was one of those ppl, hmm i think u would definitely have a different take on that. How do u kno that Bush is a trustworthy guy, all u see is what's on the news, do u kno him personally? Becuz u really can't say what kind of person he is becuz u don't kno him. If u are in the military God bless u, but if not, u talk about how we should definitely be over there... let me ask this.... would u risk ur life for our country?

Answer 2

I'm hoping the one hundred and tenth Congress does not ship him a further investment invoice, however I'm no longer very constructive. Every Congress probably units new lows for stupidity. When the summer season ends and the troop surge outcome in a fair higher crisis, the Bush Administration is simply gonna have extra excuses. They're governing this nation identical to the Democrats did within the 90s. Clinton additionally adored occurring wars of country constructing. Clinton might have adored to double the dimensions of the Department of Education. Clinton might have adored to cross Medicare Part D and hasten the chapter of the United States of America. I wish the 2008 election outcome in defeat each for the Clinton/Obama Democrats and the Neo-Con Republicans. It might be fine if the election might be Mike Gravel VS Ron Paul. They're the one respectable applicants strolling for the nominations of the two giant events.

Answer 3

The very short and simple answer is that the war was not justified. Neither Al Queda nor the Taliban had any presence there, nor was Iraq any threat to the West. Period!

This war is pure politics at it's worst. All LIES and smoke and mirrors for POLITICAL GAIN. Period!

Neither Al Queda nor the Taliban had any significant foothold in the Middle East so it's impossible for them to "retake" it in any time frame. In 35 seconds neither Al Queda nor the Taliban will amout to SH*T, however, 2 people will die because of drunk drivers right here in the USA.

Why can't people complain about drunk drivers the way that they complain about "terrorists". We'd have to repeat 9/11 ever 36 days to equal the carnage on our roads and highways EVERY FOOKING YEAR at the hands of home-grown DRUNK DRIVERS, people!

LET'S GET OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!! Iraq is a non-issue and terrorism is small potatoes compared to things that we can actually DO SOMETHING about!

Oh, and BTW, if you think the media is 100% liberal, you've obviously never watched Fox News. Give me a break, OK? Sheesh!

Answer 4

1.-This war has nothing to do with al-quaida or any other terrorist group, it's all about 3 letters O-I-L. If the US government was really concerned about the human rights being violated, terrorism, and all those arguments they claim... they would try to change things in Africa where people is starving to death in the first place; or at least not torturing Iraq's people.

2.- Terrorist are not being killed, even if you kill Bin Laden, people will keep up plotting attacks, with or without him... on the contrary, this war is CREATING terrorist, I'll tell you why: Let's suppose you're a kid, you're walking in the streets with your dad, and suddenly you see american soldiers taking your dad away from you and he gets a bullet in his head or tortured to death. Wouldn't you have really hard feelings about this blond fellas?? me too, and with the proper brainwash and training, you'd be glad to explode in pieces just to kill some of them... the more, the better. There are looooots of cases similar to these right now.

3.- I really doubt the ones who say Bush sucks voted him. And most of the people that say he sucks are not from the US... sadly many Americans are being brainwashed about this administration policies (that will damage them sooner than later), but the international community is seeing this from a wider prespective, and being seriously hurt by these policies right now.

Hope I made my point.... trying not to be disrespectful or anything.

Answer 5

This is wrong..we had the world's backing going after Osama but we literally told our regular allies (less the lap dog Blair) to screw off and attacked a country that had no ties to 9/11 or Al-queda...Wimp chose no diplomacy with Iraq..but kisses N Korea and Iran's butts AND THEY ARE A THREAT to AMERICA... and where the hell is Osama...heck we even offered the poor villagers $25,000,000 to turn him in and those $3 to 4hundred a year dirt farmers NEVER GAVE HIM UP....W imp is just a bag of stinky wind..spending 300+BILLIONS on a war that is the terrorists strongest recruiting point..that we can't win..I will stop now before I become really upset

Get a clue where are the WMD's we invaded to remove from Iraq? The MUSHROOM clouds? 2nd excuse.Remove Saddam..he kills his people (and in the whole world we decide he is the worst offender??)well they had electricity..running water and cheap gas...now we pay $2+ a gal to import gas to sell to the people for less than 35cents a gal...makes sense trickle down b uy high and sell low..hell our deficit isn't too high we have plenty of future taxpayers that are who'll have to pay for it....You are obviously one of the 3 out of ten that think this jerk is doing a good job?? yes that's why they're trotting out that dead horse Gay marriage ban,,,embolden the base?

Answer 6

I know.. I'll just throw a blanket over my head and hope the problem goes away. As long as it's my kids, I don't have to worry. It is someone else's problem. I was cool in the 60's when I burned my draft card and watched my friends go to Vietnam.

Well damn now it's 2002 and other Americans are going to go fix a problem that I was too lazy or didn't have the guts to really think about, now I'm jealous...this must be STOPPED!!! I'll tell everyone how much better I am morally by opposing it!!! Soldiers kill babies! Just listen to the news! I don't believe in war! My son will never fight for Bush!

Son, I love you even if you play with Barbies.. smoking pot is normal, I did it in the 60's...why don't you respect me? Listen to your grandparents!!! It was cool to be anti war in the 60's, we are going to make a difference today!!!

Where is my Prozac and Elavil? Son, you are growing up to be an emasculated semi-male like me whether you like it or not, just ask your mom!!!

Answer 7

We have no business over there. We went under the pretense of WMDs. There were none. Then suddenly it changed to "Iraqi Freedom", which I never heard Iraq cry for help (certainly unlike countries who have really called for help like LIBERIA, or even a demonstration like Tianamen Square - China, Sudan or Uganda attrocities that are clearly in violation of UN/international law). Therefore, we are expending soldiers lives and money in a country we are not even wanted in. We should not be there. Even the United Nations said we shouldn't....but we're there anyway so Dubya can finish what daddy couldn't do.

Answer 8

First of all, what is there for the US to win? Last time I checked, the Taliban wasn't in Iraq and neither was Al-qaida before the US invasion.

It's a pointless war based on lies. A never-ending war that will cost countless lives for no good reason. You can't defeat terrorism by declaring war on a religion.

Answer 9

I was in favor of the US intervening in Afghanistan because it was sheltering Osama who attacked the US. I was not in favor of invading Iraq because it did not attack the United States. It's that simple.

Yes, the Iraqui dictator headed a horrible government and was responsable for lots of awful things such as torture in his own country, but he was no friend of the Taliban. The Taliban and Saddam were on opposite sides of most issues and were not allies.

Iraq under Saddam didn't ever recognize the Taliban government as being legitimate. (Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates ever accepted the Taliban as Afghanistan's government.) Saddam supported secular (meaning non-religious) gorvernment. He stopped most use of religious law courts (called Sharia) and put in western style courts. He also gave women opportunities for advancement within government and supported letting women work.

The Taliban on the other hand, believed religion should be the basis of government. The Taliban supported religious Sharia courts which enforced such punishments as flogging and amputation (a thief could have a hand cut off, a woman who wore nail polish could have a fingertips cut off), didn't allow women to work or go to school, and were not fans of secular anything.

If we attacked every nasty dictator in the world we'd have a long long list ahead of us and no resources left to defend our own country. Let's save our gunpower for folks who actually attack us or harbor those attackers.

Answer 10

He was never elected, he stole the first election and was appointed and he rigged the second election with the dibold machines. The war was ill advised and had nothing to do with terror. Saddam was contained and could not even offer any resistance, the war was ill planed with all the things that happened after the fall of Baghdad. If there was WMD's wouldn't Saddam had used them. Duh.
I personally oppose all wars. They are just not good for living things. The president that you praise has the most corrupt administration I have ever seen and I go back as far as Ike.