ANSWER HONESTLY
2006-09-03 12:53:32 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No. I have always believed we are there for the right reasons. All that reporting deaths do is try to turn Americans against the war by using human emotion. Great leaders and wars have one thing in common, you have to put emotion aside to get the job done. Our leaders should have never allowed what they did in Vietnam because it gave the media the idea that what they have and continue to do is acceptable and it is not.
2006-09-03 13:08:59 · answer #1 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. I was always against the war. Now let me ask you a question. The president stood up in May of 2003 and said that major combat operations were over. At that there were less than 500 dead US service people. If there were no reports of casualties beyond that but then we find out 3 years later that over 2000 MORE had been killed, wouldn't you want to know what had been going on? Wouldn't you want to know why 2 soldiers had been dying every day on average for 3 years and why the American people had not known about it?
2006-09-03 13:15:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, as a God fearing man, I don't condone any unjustified death, that includes the Iraqis. In addition, even without the number of US deaths, we American's are still going to have to pay for the war with our tax dollars. Figuring out how will be left to the next Administration, so Bush doesn't care.
2006-09-03 14:10:26 · answer #3 · answered by choyryu 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When I look at this war, I am not concerned with the nationality of those lost. People are people, and no one deserves to die in war - whether soldiers or "collateral damage." To me, zero Americans dead and 45,000 Iraqis dead is just as sad and maddening as 2600 Americans dead and 45,000 Iraqis dead. As long as there is an innocent death toll, I am not in support of the war.
2006-09-03 13:38:35 · answer #4 · answered by maguire1202 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, war is bad no matter what the news tells me. The news is influenced and controlled by the government, so why would I believe everything I hear? And besides, you only said US deaths. Does that mean that US deaths mean more than Iraqis? I value life as beyond nationalities, race, gender, age. Its all sacred.
2006-09-03 12:59:48 · answer #5 · answered by Naomi P 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You mean, if the deaths had still occurred but weren't being reported?
No, that would make no difference on my beliefs. As long as I was aware of the facts, my opinion would be the same.
2006-09-03 13:09:04 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no,,,
it was for oil
my view would change
if the media said
1) there is no oil in iraq
2) bush senior died 10 yr ago
2006-09-03 12:58:57 · answer #7 · answered by pagolpakhi 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Though I do believe that we should have waited until we finished in Afghanistan to invade. And not on the grounds of WMDs. There was enough proof to invade for other reasons.
2006-09-03 13:04:29 · answer #8 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Theres always death in war no matter what
2006-09-03 13:40:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no it was a war that was not worth fighting at all. Saddam was not a treat but that is what the president wants you to think.
2006-09-03 12:57:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋