2006-12-22 08:22:04 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Cut and run is not victory.
2006-12-22 08:24:40 · answer #1 · answered by x 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
10,000 soldiers?
I admire every soldier dead and alive, vets, and everyone else for their service. But this is the cost of war.
3,000 soldiers died in a pre D-day rehearsal type thing. just the rehearsal. 10,000 is nothing really
whether or not i agreed with going into Iraq in the first place, doesnt matter. i believe we must stay their and fight till the end. our best chance is to stay on the offensive and not wait until the day comes when terrorists strike again.
We became the top country through war, and in order to keep the status quo we are going to have to fight at some point. I mean, why would another country like to be under, or not as great as the US. This is why issues with Iraq and North Korea exist. They dont want to be kept down. In order to stay on top, we have to keep them down
QUIT BEING SO NICE DAMMIT im pissed at this country
2006-12-22 09:56:36 · answer #2 · answered by Matt 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is just the opinion of a Soldier so dont take it as anything important. It all depends on what you classify as losing soldiers. If you include the wounded and now mentally instable with the dead then we have already lost over 15,000 but what would I know. Or if you count the actual number of dead and not just the released numbers then we should have left Iraq 8 months ago. Thats just what I know and no we cant just do that because its a matter of dignity now.
2006-12-22 09:33:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We should declare victory or leave Iraq until we accomplish the mission, period.
The U.S. can not afford to back down. We need to stay the course and show the world that we will not be defeated simply because too many people die. No war can be won soley on attrition.
If we quit now, we will only be sending the message that we are week and can be taken over if the aggressor is persistent.
Anybody that thinks differently is an ignorant coward.
2006-12-22 09:02:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Iraq is a place of civil unrest acceptable now! I easily have a husband who has been there two times and replaced into in Baghdad the two situations. Theses are people who're a lost reason. The conflict we are battling is a spiritual one. they have been battling among one yet another when you consider that biblical situations. this could be a conflict we won't be able to win. we are battling a conflict with a life-style that doesn't like us. Granted some do and alot of them paintings for our defense force...yet those adult adult males won't be able to alot of situations pass back residing house for is they're found out they are going to be killed. Or in the event that they discover out your are working for the people they'll kill you, and not think of two times on the certainty you're basically attempting to make a residing. this could be a civil conflict which we won't be able to win. it quite is basically my opinion.
2016-10-05 22:05:23 · answer #5 · answered by lavinia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Wars kill alot of people. 10k is nothing compared to how many honorable men and women perished in Vietnam, WWI, or WWII. I agree we should no longer be in Iraq. Though I don't blame this all on the president either. Don't forget the vast majority of Americans where all kinds of supportive, hooting and hollering, for starting this thing in the first place.
2006-12-22 08:36:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Sir, we live in a world that has wars and those wars need to be fought by men with guns. Who's going to do it? You? The military personnel have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for terrorist and insurgents and curse the military; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what they know: that military deaths, while tragic, probably saved lives and that their existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want them in that war, you need them in that war. They use words like honor, code, loyalty. They use them as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punch-line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom they provide and then questions the manner in which they provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think!
2006-12-22 08:26:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
I hope we are not having this much numbers, right now we got almost 3000. That's enough..... Bring them back home now.......
It's make any sense. Counting the numbers in the meantime counting the injured soldiers too. That's stupid.
2006-12-23 04:48:44 · answer #8 · answered by cat 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The U.S. lost 2,000 men a day in WWII. The liberals in America would have surrendered 3 days into the war with the Japanese and the Germans at that rate. The U.S. lost one million men between the Civil War, WWI and WWII when the U.S. population was a lot less.
2006-12-22 09:13:13 · answer #9 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. How do you feel about not having heat, gasoline, a job, etc etc??
That part of the world -- Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -- represents 40% of the world's oil supply. If that falls into civil war, or the hands of a Saddam-style dictator, you can kill your nice lifestyle goodbye.
2006-12-22 08:28:25 · answer #10 · answered by geek49203 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Win and run?
I think they tried to do that with Vietnam, pass it off as a victory?
2006-12-22 08:27:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋