2006-12-09 08:33:06 · 9 answers · asked by ally 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Is Iraq really worth 3000 dead soldiers?
2006-12-09 08:37:47 · answer #1 · answered by Ferret 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't really see the reason why we went there in the first place, if we stay there longer things are only going to escalate between the Sunni's and Shia's . Obviously removing all troops immediately would be a total disaster for both Iraq and the US we should make a good exit plan that won't leave iraq in shambles when we leave.
2006-12-09 08:52:26 · answer #2 · answered by petercom10 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agreed with the war to begin with... and I have NEVER thought (nor heard) that Iraq was behind 9/11. I served in the Gulf from 1986-1998, and was well aware of the situation...
I opposed Rumsfeld's plans for the invasion as follows: insufficient MP troops to secure prisoners and insufficient planned recovery/civil affairs/engineering troops.
The INVASION and overthrow went off well... it was our 'liberation' and rebuilding that didn't go as well... we should have put a LOCK-DOWN on the Iranian and Syrian borders.
I think, in a way we need a MILITARY-POLICE force... separate from our conventional forces. OR we kick the UN in the back-side and get THEM to develop that force and USE it.
2006-12-09 09:03:59 · answer #3 · answered by mariner31 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Disagree! We havent accomplished anything that is worth what we've lost and destroyed. We're the bully here. Sure there are people out there that would do anything to kill Americans and, yes, it's good that were trying to prevent them from succeeding. But we've killed others besides them. We've done more destruction than any of us intended at the beginning, whenever that was. We need to stop the war and stay there and heal what we've destroyed, with as little arms as needed. Bush has set a bad example for humanity and an incorrect profile of what America truly is.
2006-12-09 08:42:30 · answer #4 · answered by lovely2cu 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Disagree because although Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator he wasn't a direct threat to us and didn't fund terrorism. We should have been worrying more about countries like Iran and Syria because they fund terrorism. I think that if we leave now though all we would do is create a terrorists haven similar to the one that was in Afganistan.
2006-12-09 08:51:40 · answer #5 · answered by Nobody Special 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with it. Mainly cause the troops I've talked to - which is many as I've lived on military installations for 10 yrs now - tell me that we are doing good over there. It's just not 'sensational' enough to be reported on the news very much.
Out of all of the troops I've talked to - only one said we aren't doing any good. I didn't question her further yet though.
2006-12-09 08:36:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we should have been there in the first place, but we started it and we have to stay until it's finished. Everyone (except Bush) says we are there because of oil and I believe that is the only reason. If Rhodesia or Kenya had oil, you can bet we would be there fighting for their "freedom".
2006-12-09 08:49:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agreed going in and agree to stay; whether you supported going in or not, we're there and we cant cut and run now.
2006-12-09 08:35:16 · answer #8 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree to fight them there rather than here. God bless our troops!
2006-12-09 08:49:26 · answer #9 · answered by Bawney 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋