English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

17 answers

totally against...nothing justifies killing another human being, especially when so many civilians have died. that's just inhumane. plus, the war was initiated with lies that america bought.
by the way i am an american citizen, born and raised but just ashamed of the reasons our govt. gives for war.

2006-08-15 05:12:33 · answer #1 · answered by pennylane 2 · 1 0

First thing, we are not at war we are at occupation, you have to know the difference before you can move on. The war was done when Bush said "mission accomplished" on that aircraft carrier, in 02' I think. From here the Bush administration started the occupation kinda like in WWII with Japan and Germany only this time Bush is trying to control the business part of the country instead of installing a government and going home which is how you win a occupation and is what happened in WWII. The Bushites has done a great job of turning the word insurgent into the word terrorist and trying to connect 911 with Iraq and the people are not buying it 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and no action there. Bush wanted to go into Iraq before he was president we know that now and he needed a Pearl Harbor event to get the people behind him.

2006-08-15 12:37:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As one that has seen the intel for the run up to the invasion, no. What's really telling is that I know several members that worked on the 9/11 report and resigned their commissions or decided not to re-enlist. What's REALLY telling is that the Captain I worked for was going to be promoted to Rear Admiral because of his work on the 9/11 investigation. He refused it and handed in his retirement paperwork. A friend of mine also worked on the report and he decided to seek a job elsewhere. And he was 4 years shy of retiring.

At first I thought it was a good idea. Until I started looking at who was providing the intel. There was a reason why Clinton didn;t act on it. Ahmed Chalabi was hand picked by Bush to take control in Iraq. Never mind the fact that Chalabi is a convicted embezzler wanted in Jordan. There was the fact that the sources he brought out to support the invasion never agreed with one another. Key events don't mesh. They consistently contradicted themselves.

But the clincher was the Niger Uranium claim that Bush made. It was known a year in advance that the claim was bogus. In fact, one of the scientists mentioned has been under british guard since '93 and has never left the country. That's when I really started questioning the motives behind our invasion.

But we're there now and we have to finish it. Unlike what we've done in Afghanistan. Why aren't people up in arms about the fact that Bush has disbanded the units looking for Osama Bin Laden? How about the fact that the Taliban are now controlling 1/3 of the country again?

2006-08-15 12:18:10 · answer #3 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 0 0

I don't. Although I support the troops and the war on terror, I never understood the connection between Iraq and 9-11. I don't think the Bush administration has the support of most people, both here and in Iraq. I think the plan has backfired, and spawned more terrorism. It seems like we're creating enemies faster than we can kill them.

2006-08-15 12:18:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes...I think the reasons were wrong mostly. I think Saddam should have been removed years before because of his repeated failure to allow the arms inspectors in and because he truely is a terrorist to his own people. I don't think WMDs was acceptable even though he probably had them and they were moved to syria. He was never truely going to threaten the U.S. Having retired from the Army some 8 years ago, I am always behind our soldiers, marines, seamen, and airmen. I have been to Iraq several times for work. I was there during the gulf war, this past war and with the troops this past year. Before you fall in to the lemming state of mind and listine to the media, I would ask that you talk to soldiers and then form your decision about whether we should be there and I am not talking about blogs. Blogs are just people trying to stir up things. I know lots of soldiers that are proud of what they accomplished and the good they did even though they may not neccessarily agree with the reason we went.

2006-08-15 13:56:07 · answer #5 · answered by chuck 2 · 0 0

First off I want to let you know I support our troops they have no choice in being there, and there Families as I have family there. However I feel our government was wrong for going into Iraq or anywhere. It's no different then another country not liking what we do here so they invade and push there beliefs on us and tell us how we should live. I am also trying to understand how we went from OSAMA to SADAM when OSAMA was responsible for 9/11. I think it is wrong for anyone to push there beliefs and cultures on others there has to be respect and understanding. I would like to see our government take care of there own people before running to other countries trying to take care of there's. To me it's all about the money and politics not the people.

2006-08-15 12:47:05 · answer #6 · answered by twinsmakesfive 4 · 0 0

No! Even if you supported it at first why would you support it now. Think about this when we leave Iraq, if its tomorrow or ten years from now, we will leave in place a government that supports terrorists. The government which we helped put in place now has come out in support of Hezbollah and no matter how long we remain there that will always be the case. So why should one more American soldier die for that outcome.

2006-08-15 12:19:31 · answer #7 · answered by region50 6 · 0 0

At first I didn't...but know I think we have to finish what we started. And to those who say that the people who do support the war have no ties to it.....you are wrong. We have a volunteer army. If people don't want to sign up then they don't......there is no the pres. won't send his daughters over there.....if they didn't sign up then that is not the problem....the reason our army is so powerful is that fact that it is made up of volunteers....I wouldn't want people fighting for me who were forced....I have several close friends who have been there fighting and a brother who will be there with in the year. Every person in the military new there was a chance of going to war...they just hoped they wouldn't have to....now that we have started this....we have to stay and finish it....If you are ashamed of what we did in the first place...we would be even worse if we left and let the people there deal with what we caused.

2006-08-15 14:50:27 · answer #8 · answered by yetti 5 · 0 0

Yes, I do support the war in Iraq. We should all support our troops and the cause their fighting for.

2006-08-15 12:12:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Everybody supported it at the beginning. John Kerry (sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee), Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy... But now everybody forgets this and wants to side with public opinion. Osama may have been right, we can not fight a prolonged war. The public doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to support it for the long haul. Thank God we didn't have to fight Hitler today, or do we?

2006-08-15 12:13:07 · answer #10 · answered by Rich E 3 · 0 0

We're there now and we can just leave them to a civil war and possible genocide. I support staying and finishing what we started. All that happened before today is irrelevant. The fact is we are there and have to make a choice based on that.

2006-08-15 12:10:58 · answer #11 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers