i see some dumb answers Iraq did have WMD because they used them and our military said they found 500 rounds of WMD and we didn't pull out of Korea we sill have troops there to make sure north Korea doesn't invade the south and we did have a demarcate president in WW2 but he wasn't a pussy demarcate like we have today and the only reason we left Vietnam was because the demarcates stopped funding the war
2006-10-30 06:24:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
to bryn L : well said.
Like people said , this look like an UNJUSTIFIED war.
If it were to get rid of an evil dictator , then as the job is done why are they not getting out?? ( a lot of other dictators are spared )
Did the invasion benefit in any way the iraqis?? Most part of the country are controlled by militias , who in some cases are just like taliban. Oppression for women etc. I think women were better off under saddam. If the life is better now without saddam , why are they fighting to get rid of americans?? ( 100 so far this month and counting.. )
Why are the americans not saving the world by taking away the WMDs with DPRK ?? Saddam did not have any. But the koreans
demonstrated that they actually HAVE nukes .
why why why why?????
2006-10-30 04:06:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by jaco 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
First of all, I do not believe that the democrats will pull us out of Iraq. They will not be able to. What will happen is because of the democrats wishy-washy ways, the killings of Americans soldiers will increase. BY THE BY, we had a democratic president when WW2 started and when it ended. I believe since I do not feel that the democrats have a good handle on foreign relationships, we will get in more armed conflicts and there will be more terrorist attacks against the USA on American soil. If we elect a democratic Congress or a democratic president.
2006-10-30 03:59:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by bettyswestbrook 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
destabilize further you recommend? Dozens of people die in iraq each and every week, you think approximately this to be solid? As for signing up for the army, evaluate why your going first. Are you going to guard the rustic, or be a mercenary for the oil companys? This occupation is only approximately oil. Its approximately funds. in case you wanna visit iraq and threat getting shot at so rich people can get richer, choose for it, yet do not go questioning your saving the worldwide or something of that nature. I dont choose any further individuals killed or maimed only so the government can manage them horribly while they get decrease back to the states and cant get appropriate well being care.
2016-10-16 13:23:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You may be taking the Democratic complaint out of context, but I can't speak for all Democrats. It really varies by person. There's no doubt that the psychological affect of a deluge of reports about deaths can impact public support, but so can a sense of futility, and that the mission is unclear, with suspect goals and reasons for it. Those last three issues are the context of the desire to end the war.
2006-10-30 03:48:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
You have way oversimplified. The reason they want to bring the troops home is because they are dying in a war they think is UNJUSTIFIED. Justified wars are worth fighting and most agree with this. It is that they don't agree with the war, the reasons for going to war, or the direction the war is going. So they want they troops to stop dying under those conditions.
2006-10-30 03:47:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
It seems we have two choices. You know, the lesser of the two evils. We can choose to fight these wars that we feel are necessary for the preservation of our livelyhood or not. It we choose not to fight, maybe old Patrick Henry has the correct quote::::
Quote: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
Author: Patrick Henry 1736-1799, American Orator, Patriot
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
2006-10-30 04:10:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by just the facts 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, we clearly did not "win" either Korea or Vietnam, (we pulled out) and I think we will not be able to claim a "win" against terrorism in the current conflict. What an unholy mess we have created. Our leaders had/have no understanding of the culture which would be necessary to have any positive outcome in that region, nor do they seem to think the acquisition of such knowledge would be helpful....perplexing.
2006-10-30 03:48:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by finaldx 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
well you did pull out of Korean without winning and you pulled out of Vietnam after losing badly
you only joined ww2 when you were attacked and refused to fight Hitler, on the whole it shouldn't be a problem
you have lost in Iraq it is only a question of how many American dead will you have before you leave.
Afghanistan is looking bad for you too
2006-10-30 03:52:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Bryn L 2
·
3⤊
2⤋
My answer.. Because there's nobody to fight, its a joke and its going nowhere, and just like vietnam we should give up since nobody in that country wants us there hardly, and if we kill off all the resistance its would require large scale genocide!
2006-10-30 03:51:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋