ACTUALLY sweetie, my brother in law is there & that is exactly what they do, they are training there people to drive the trucks & all sorts of things so that they can properly protect themselves. He said 85% of the soldiers dont think they should be there, but they dont have a choice. The only time they are killing people is when they are on a mission (which is transporting equipment from one base to another) and they are attacked, then they fire back. You are right, some want us out of there, but not all of them. Alot of Iraqis are happy that we are there to help.
But again that doesnt mean that we or the soldiers over there agree with out reason for being there, its just something they have to do
If noone enlisted in the army, what would happen if another country started a war here? We certainly couldnt protect ourselves, thats what the soldiers are for, to protect our country. Its just sad that they have been put in this situation, one that they cannot change!
2006-09-27 02:03:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by MANDEE 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The war on Iraq is very profitable to the USA. The only thing that matters to the US is oil. It is definitly not true that the US is helping becuase things were much better before the US went there alone without taking the approval of the UN and claiming that there are WMD which were never found. Dont you get it people, this war is purly for a financial reason. As for the ethical reason, follow this link to know the US ethics in was http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow1.htm
2006-09-27 02:17:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The button at the top of the entry panel called "CHECK SPELLING" is meant to be used.
When you misspell words, your argument suffers. It would have been simple to either READ THROUGH your rant and discover the spelling errors or click the BUTTON.
Your tirade, well-intentioned, I'm sure, is basically banal, unoriginal and badly phrased. I know what you mean, but your sentences, structure, spelling and grammar could make you the poster child for America's dwindling supply of intelligent people.
In other words, though your concept is good, your application is severely flawed.
Go back to school, or hit the CHECK SPELLING button the next time you post.
2006-09-27 02:48:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by mend2046 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
hostile to the Iraq conflict yet for the reason that we began it we favor to end it. of route there is the prospect that with Saddam in power we would have ultimately had to flow to conflict in some unspecified time sooner or later. Who is common with? I only imagine the money would were extra ideal spent contained in the u . s . a . on significant different and toddlers power progression. ideas you, i'm no longer some fool who's blindly anti-conflict or anti-military. till anybody contained in the international ceases to be aggressive there'll continually be a choose for a military. see you later as international places compete for land and elements there'll be conflict. those who campaign to end all wars or get rid of the military live in a dreamworld.
2016-11-24 22:07:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by manger 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I would validate one point you make. If the search for OBL was such a priority, why was the CIA unit dedicated to hunting him down disbanded last December and why have other resources been moved elsewhere?
2006-09-27 02:14:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Q&A Queen 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
well there is a war in Iraq
2006-09-27 02:06:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋