Fine then, what would you anti-war people do about the war?

Question

Surrending would shame us, and would be like a boost to the terrorists. Plus all the fighting would be for naught.

Changing the strategy would make Bush a liar, etc, etc.

Staying there would only make more die.

Do you suggest we go have a nice "chat" with the terrorists and ask them nicely not to attack anyone anymore?

I've been looking at some of the questions, and many are extremely opposed to the war and attack it with BS evidence, yet no one proposes an alternative.

Your time to shine, Dems.

Christina-Though you are clearly on the opposing side, I have to applaud you on your answer. The funny thing is, most everyone on the Politics/News sections have already got their mind made up. They just like to yell idiot at anyone who disagrees and give the best answers to the answer they already knew in ttheir mind.

But really. Can you give me an alternative to this war?

I'm not totally for the war, but all other options seem...pointless at this point.

Oh, drop the attitude huh?

If you haven't noticed, almost everyone has an attiude around here. It's not just "us", whoever the hell we are.

Answer 1

Now here is the problem. Your question is so hostile, it's obvious that you have already made up your mind and the chances of you listening to any rational disagreement with our view of the war are slim and none. So rather than waste time on an answer that you are most likely going to reject out of hand, most rational intelligent people who disagree with you are just going to ignore you. Which, of course, you will interpret as our inability to refute your "logic" and will only reinforce your limited world view. If you are serious about our ideas for the war, drop the attitude. You just may learn something.

Fair enough.

Fund the war. Leaving aside the fact that Bush led this country into war based on what can only charitably be described as faulty intelligence, the fact that churches are having to hold bake sales so soldiers can afford to buy body armor is a disgrace. The fact that soldiers are driving vehicles that are insufficiently armored because there is no money in the budget to armor them propperly is a disgrace. The fact that Bush offered tax cuts at the expense of our troops is a disgrace. The fact that enrollment is down for the armed forces due in no small part to veteran's benefits being slashed is a disgrace.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Republicans throw around the phrase "tax and spend Democrats" like it is some kind of insult. Far from it. Had we been in charge of Congress, I would guess the casualty rate would be anywhere from 25 to 50% less, because we would have seen to it that out troops were taken care of. We would have had the money for emergency defense spending in the wake of 9-11, because we would not have frittered it away on tax cuts designed solely for the purpose of obtaining some short term political capital. War is not the time to short change your armed services, yet that is exactly what Bush did. By the time he realized his mistake, it was too late. He got into hot water with the true fiscal conservatives in his party by running up the debt and creating deficit spending. And it wound up biting him in the ***. Social conservatives were not powerful enough to keep his party in power. True fiscal conservatives abandoned their party and voted Democratic, thinking that if the money was going to be spent, at least they should get something for it. Your taxes may go up as a result of this election, but at least you will be getting your money's worth. That's more than we can say for the past six years.

And please excuse the attitude crack. Your question got my hackles up a bit and I got carried away. I apologize.

Answer 2

Generally Europe consider Bush to be one step short in intelligance than a carrot but then you did vote him in 2 years ago so Kerry must be a sprout.
regards the war your new defense secretary said in 1999 going to Iraq would be another Vietnam...we should all pull out immediately there will be a civil war anyway but why should any trooper come home dead and our tax money get spent trying to save face about the decision to go there.
Some faction within Iraq will win and the blood loss will be great but unless there is a commercial/political reason (which I think there is) what goal can be achieved

Answer 3

Guess what, Bush is a liar. So, with that problem out of the way,

we come up with a timetable and a strategy to get the iraqi army to take over. We go back, hat in hand, to the UN and get some coalition forces to help.

We give the soldiers who are over their the leadership to do the job they need to do, fighting alongside the iraqis that we are trying to help.

Yes, sadly, more will die, but with a better goal than "that man tried to kill my daddy".

Iraq policy can work, if we are willing to embrace a new tactic

Answer 4

we would never have started it

Answer 5

do you think it is possible to shame a american?