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

2006-10-12 04:20:22 · 15 answers · asked by El Pistolero Negra 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

15 answers

Baiting is not a good way to create dialogue.

While I don't like the idea of having our military deployed constantly, the alternative would be facing the possibility of seeing NYC or Washington under the glow of a nuclear device.

The peace at any would compromised freedoms in this country that were fought for, I'd rather not see 7% of my paycheck going to social security I'd rather invest it myself. And another percentage going to federal income taxes to pay for programs I don't agree with.

While you may not agree with the Iraq war, the realities are this, Hussein was in violation of several UN resolutions, the US was attacked in 2001, while connecting the dots for people on the left is difficult, the reality is their solution to global terrorism has been non-existent. Hussein was allowing Al Quada to have training camps in the Northern part of the country, Enough Saran gas to kill 250,000 people WAS found IN Iraq post 2003. Issues that the left leaning media fail to bright to light to their audience. The left leaning media in my estimation acts as the propaganda wing of the current ultra-left wing democratic party.

Another poster this morning posed a question about will there ever be concensus between the ultra-left and ultra-right so we can get back to middle ground? Truthfully, I doubt it.

I grew up in the 60s and 70s knowing full well we could see a mushroom cloud on the horizon. This is the reality.. Appeasement allows enemies to grow in force. We need only look at 1930s Germany and Japan to see historical pretexts.
We should learn. But I find most people don't look at history. I was a history minor in college, and have found from just studying human behavior, people tend to repeat mistakes of past times, because of the arrogant assumptions we've learned something and won't repeat it. Who won't repeat it? Kim Il Jong, Mahmood, Hussein, Pol Pot, Bassad?

Look at world history, war occurs when good people turn a blind eye to problems before they reach a boiling point. Dictators around the world will continue to exist that step on human rights and when people turn a blind eye to genocide such as Rwanda or Kurdistan, a part of us that makes us human dies.

If you want dialogue, then look at both sides of the issue.

2006-10-12 04:44:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Bush planted the seed of Democracy in the middle east.. he did not say it would be easy. If we left them alone...we would have more acts of war on our country.. Honelstly I think we should have gone in when they bomb the USS Cole. We need bigger balls in this country and show them we are the boss. Unless of course you would like Presidant Tom to be the boss. Then we can all pray 6 times a day. Or the little short guy from N. Korea :)

2006-10-12 04:42:20 · answer #2 · answered by lucy luck** 1 · 0 0

Absolutely. As a true conservative - a Libertarian - I believe that our military should only be used for the purposes described in the constitution. Namely, defense of our country against actual invasion or imminent threat. Iraq was not an imminent threat.

Being conservative means not looking for wild new ways to justify expanding government power. Which is exactly how you can recognize the Bush administration as a liberal one.

2006-10-12 04:23:32 · answer #3 · answered by Mark P 5 · 0 2

because of the fact in u . s ., as quickly as Bush left place of work and O took over, no person on the left cared correct to the conflict anymore, its as though it did no longer take place and its as though its nonetheless no longer occurring because of the fact might make the little guy in the white domicile look undesirable, and it might make Bush look sturdy to communicate correct to the achievement of the surge. Iraq is honestly rather previous information in u . s . ever because of the fact the conflict president O took over. The media is so gentle approximately O, they do no longer even communicate approximately Afghanistan and there is very almost no media there. ny cases isn't attacking the administration on an common basis, and so on.

2016-12-26 17:25:20 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

I am for the war in Iraq. However, I believe now we should get out of there, but it's too late and we are in too deep.

2006-10-12 04:28:30 · answer #5 · answered by Captain Trips 2 · 0 0

Not me..,Sadam continued to fail to abide by the UN resolution,he continually delayed or denied the UN inspectors to come in,he was shooting at our guys in the no fly zone and he was getting weapons from france,germany and Russia with the oil for food program and we knew it but we couldnt prove it until we went in.So I was all for it,still am.

2006-10-12 04:26:04 · answer #6 · answered by halfbright 5 · 1 0

for the most part the general idea is accepted and is just , but the strategy needs some working on . I don't understand why we don't have more military there . but of course i don't speak for all conservatives

2006-10-12 04:23:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Yes, I'm sure some do but by and large it seems those that are most anxious to send our son's and daughters into harms way have had little experience in the foxhole themselves.....

2006-10-12 04:29:44 · answer #8 · answered by gamerunner2001 6 · 1 0

because they donot look at the information coming from IrAQ they believe drive_ by _ media.

2006-10-12 04:24:27 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 2 0

yes.
some in the Republican party are distancing themselves from Bush and Cheney for this and many other reasons..
very conservative Quakers Amish Mennonites others don't believe in war for any reason.

2006-10-12 04:24:04 · answer #10 · answered by macdoodle 5 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers