"There's one thing I'm not going to do, I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," "We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren." What victory & How many more lives is he going to sacrifice needlessly ? Are we really defending our country or are we just defending him and his sensless direction?
2006-11-28 06:36:52 · 13 answers · asked by dn.dan_6575 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
no but u r
2006-11-28 06:38:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Ok think about this:
9/11---Saddam has/had terrorists ties to more than Al Qeada
We are defending our country. As are the other 30 Nations Helping us. Which I find really annoying. It has never only been Americans DIEING.
3000 Lives in the Service of this Great Nation. As sad as it is to lose a soldier. Is nothing in the History of War. Go look at WW1. 19 Million soldiers...115,000 of those American(KIA, Wounded) and that was in only 13 months of fighting for the Americans. The British and French fared far worse.
As for defending our country...DUH....By taking the fight to the enemy you keep the enemy out of your backyard.
Do you enjoy walking your dog down the street? Pull out of Iraq before it is stable...And you get a first hand intro to IDE's and suicide bombers, etc etc...the problem is if we leave. The terrorists will see it as a great victory..And the world is soft. Ali rules..etc etc.. And guess where the new war starts your backyard.
Better go check and see how much some Kevlar, and 1/4 in steel plate costs. We lose this war or withdrawal. 9/11 will seem like a play land dream.
Thanks
2006-11-28 14:51:48 · answer #2 · answered by devilduck74 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes, he is. Each day I turn on the news and hear 1000+ more died today in Bagdad.. or wherever. We dont even realize that we have gotten used to it. A man was beheaded today, but we're so used to hearing it its not big news. I know we are all (or should be) thankful for everyone fighting for us, but doesnt there come a point where we think to our selves.. 1000 lives, and 2000 yesterday... ok so over 2 days we have lost about 3000 lives. but the war has been going on for 4 YEARS! theres come a poitn where its time to stop, withdrawl, and realize we can help the issue without killing thousands a day. But because Bush isnt sending his kids over, its ok. Why dont we let him flight on the front lines and see how much longer this war rages.
2006-11-28 14:51:02 · answer #3 · answered by kangaroo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We are defending our country AND we are defending our reputation which he put at Risk. Remember, whether we agree with him or not, he represents us, and even our future presidents and our congress to the world.
While I say all of this, I grant you its a senseless direction and I recommend an absolute change in the way we do things including resolving the Palestinian conflict which would reduce Muslim tension (although maybe not Iraqi tensions) and involving Iran and Syria in the process and using much more humility. We need to change the WAY we communicate radically.
2006-11-28 14:45:00 · answer #4 · answered by greenmtnsun 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Defending the United States is ridiculous. Stopping countries who support terrorists, who wants to destroy the US, is the same. After toppling down a terrorist regime, we must leave immediately, so other terrorists can take over. Most of the sacrificing, in lives, has been done by the Iraqi people who are trying to build a democratic government while fighting outside forces, like Iranian insurgents, pro-Saddam insurgents and Syrians. We must wave the white flag now before its too late. Otherwise, peace and securiy just might be achieved and we as Americans certainly do not want that to happen.
Oh yeah-just kidding
2006-11-28 14:43:41 · answer #5 · answered by Daniel 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Bush is arrogant and stubborn and this makes him a VERY DANGEROUS leader in war time. Not to the enemny, but to his people. For the leader of a country to say 'I will stay in Iraq if only Laura (his wife) and his dog are supporting him', means he does not care what the electorate (those whom empowered him) thinks.
This was of course the same person prior to Iraq war who said, 'we cannot allow protestors to shape our foreign policy'. Obviously the protestors were right, Iraq was the wrong war.
He is arrogant to think and believe in the absolute righteousness of his actions.
2006-11-28 14:46:43 · answer #6 · answered by vividtoy 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Of course he is. He squeaks into office in 2000 and 2004 and claims a mandate. He gets rebuked in 2006, claims he is looking for new ideas, yet continues with the same rhetoric. In his mind, (worthless as it is,) he thinks he knows best and anyone that disagrees with him is just wrong.
2006-11-28 14:43:20 · answer #7 · answered by capu 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
he's insane.. calling him arrogant is giving him way too much credit.
there should be phyciatric testing before someone is elected for office.... bush is an example.. insane.. listen if we acted like that we'd be in the funny farm by now if not imprisioned.
and i highly doubt if god talks to him either...
he's coo coo for cocoa puffs.
2006-11-28 14:45:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
But to answer your question... for the most part, yes. (JMO)
2006-11-28 14:45:31 · answer #9 · answered by Nina Lee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) I have no doubt that his parents were married before he was conceived.
2) 1 man's arrogance is another man's confidence. I think he is confident. I think that that is a crucial quality in a leader.
2006-11-28 14:42:42 · answer #10 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
He sure is, and he probably can neither spell the word arrogant nor pronounce it.
2006-11-28 14:41:03 · answer #11 · answered by Jacy 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋