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

39 answers

They don't need to be in Iraq. Iraq did not fly planes into the world trade center. Osam Ben Laden is not in Iraq. As for Afhganistan, if Al Qieda is the real culprit behind 911 then we should have went in with one plane and two nukes.

2006-09-06 13:11:02 · answer #1 · answered by d b 3 · 0 0

HOOAH to G.I. Jen

I support our troops very much so; however, in my opinion, something needs to change with the way things are happening. Our president is full of hypocrisy; says one thing one day and another the next. If the troops were there, for say a more legitimate reason, then it would completely different. My husband is over in Iraq, on his second year-long deployment, doing his job without complaint. He knows it's what he signed up to do, as do most other military members, however; I think and personally know a lot of soldiers are getting discouraged with the way things are going over there. Yes, we need to finish what was started, yet things can't go on the way they are. Too many lives are being lost and our administration doesn't seem to have a clear and strategic plan. It's very discouraging to me also, yet the only thing I can do, is think positively and wait for some changes to be made in D.C.

2006-09-06 12:22:08 · answer #2 · answered by MrsHooah 2 · 0 0

Yes , bring the troops home. Why? The US&UK et al have no right invading in the first place. Saddam had been the US"s fair haired boy, when they were supplying him with WMD to use against Iran, so he used them against Iraqi Kurds and The US said tsk tsk. Then his big mistake, thinking he had US approval to invade Kuwait. Bring on "Gulf War 1". When the allies reached the border they stopped, Bush Sr. told the shites , go ahead & rebel against Hussain and we will back you up. How he backed them up was to let Saddam use what he had left of his military. Now mass graves are being found of these Shites. Who's hands should their blood be on. The same question for the Kurds.
How did the Talaban get control in Afghanistan. The Russians invaded at the request of the elected socialist government who the Talaban were trying to overthrow. The US starts pouring weapons & money to them to defeat the Russians including Ground to air rocket launchers. In 1988, the Russians leave and the Talaban takes power. The US kept pouring in Money supposedly to offset the drug trade. Up until 11/09/01 the women wore burkas, not allowed to go to school, were beaten for the slightest things, & even stoned to death. But when the towers went down it became a whole different story.
Granted Osama was in Afghanistan, Being well paid by the Bin Ladens & Saudi Royal family to stay away. So Osama & abunch of Saudi's, not Iraqis, not Afghanis, but Saudis bought & paid for with Saudi money went about attacking the Twin Towers. On the 13th/09 2 planes were allowed to leave US airspace. A commercial jet and a private jet taking the entire Bin Laden Family & the Saudi Royal family back to Saudi Arabia, and not one of them were interviewed by either the CIA or FBI.
George Bush Sr was at ameeting with Osama's brother when the towers came down. The same Bin Laden that financed Georgie Jr.'s failed oil well fiasco some years ago. Now swear to uphold the Constitution, something George W, and his buddies have failed to do. At no time was the US being threatened by either Iraq Or Afghanistan.

2006-09-06 13:02:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

two seperate issues, we had the right to invade afhganistan but not iraq, at least to my limited knowledge, however the troops are doing exactly what they were told too. and once u start a war right or wrong u cant just cut and run. that would cause more problems than not

2006-09-06 11:37:22 · answer #4 · answered by Rob 2 · 1 1

first of all that guy said they need to be in iran(i'm from Iran)
first of all they can't do that they dont' have the right, if they do BIG MISTAKE
Russia and North Korea well help Iran they are great allies. The only reason Iran is allies with North Korea is because Iran gives them money. Also Syria, Lebanon and some other countries well also help. Venezuala is also a great allie for Iran but they dont' have any nuclear stuff. So that would be a big mistake if they put troops in Iran.

2006-09-06 11:34:21 · answer #5 · answered by platoon793 3 · 1 0

Hey you has it right. People don't really know what its like to be over here. I do - I'm in Iraq right now. People only know (or think they know) what the media portrays on television. And the media is completely inaccurate - they just air what will make their ratings go up. Iraq as a whole and the reasons we came over here are not clear and not very well defined but trust me, not all Iraqi's are terrorists or insurgents. A lot of them are amazing people who want a violent-free country where they can walk to the market without having to worry about getting blown up because someone wants to become a martyr. People in Baghdad love the American people. I have talked to many Iraqis and most Americans would be shocked to hear about the things that they say about when Saddam was in power and when the Americans came. They talk about it like it is BC / AD. As for the Soldiers - if you don't support the war or the reasons for why we came over here then for God's Sake - SUPPORT THE SOLDIERS. I know I didn't ask or volunteer to come over here. You may argue that I signed up for this - well I signed up to SUPPORT and DEFEND my country because I'm damn proud of it. I'm damn proud of being free and I'm DAMN proud to be a Soldier - even though the military and this country get bashed publicly everyday.
For those of you that do the bashing - remember I, along with all other Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines alive and fallen - fight so you can have your freedom of speech.

2006-09-06 11:55:09 · answer #6 · answered by Jen 2 · 1 1

It didn't do Tony Blair any good sending his troops to Iraq. His party is pushing him out as leader. They are throwing up in his face how he lied to the British nation about weapons of mast destruction in Iraq. I bet Saddam having the last laugh there.

2006-09-06 13:47:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes - Afghanistan was justified and Laden should be captured. Iraq however was a distraction from that main mission. I am not however arguing that Saddam Hussein was a nice man and shouldn't be brought to justice.

The job in both now needs to be successfully completed no matter how long it takes and how much it costs.

2006-09-06 12:40:38 · answer #8 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 0 1

Let me ask you a question! What do you think is more important, national security or political correctness.

I believe, if you ask yourself if GWB has established positive results in not allowing terrorists to cause further harm to this country, if that helps answer your question about the troops in the middle east?

2006-09-06 11:40:40 · answer #9 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0 0

By our troops do you mean American English Australian or any other country that is there and the sad truth is terrorists cannot be allowed to enforce their beliefs on free thinking people

2006-09-06 11:41:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers