Hey, Bush supporters, think about this before you celebrate the New Year tonight?

Question

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16418524/

We've reached the 3,000 U.S. fatality mark in Iraq, and your buddy Bush is gonna send 20,000-30,000 more troops over there in 2007. For What? Just thought you might wanna let that sink in before you go out partying.

THORGIRLS: I think that the Civil War had a just cause. The Iraqi War is baseless, pointless, and illegal. Your ignorance towards are fallen men and women is revolting and treasonous. I would rather have no one dying.

Answer 1

For the security of America and the world. Happy New Year.. you are safe here.

Answer 2

Speaking from a strictly Military stand point 3,000 although a tragic number of lost men and women over an almost 4 year period, strictly speaking is actually an excellent exchange vs. the number of enemies we have killed, wounded or captured (estimated between 38000 - 44000).

And Before you start screaming one is too many, let me ask you this do you think the people we are fighting right now would have stopped with three buildings? Do you think they were planning to call us the next day and say "Hey, now that we attacked you, killed Innocent people and threw your country in to turmoil, lets call it fair and all go out for some coffee."

I have Family in Iraq, I have Family who retired after over 30 years of service and WANT to get back in. Because it is their duty and their sense of loyalty to their country. those brave men and women over there volunteered, no one forced them in to the life, they chose it, so please don't trivialize their endeavors with your personal cowardice.

If you want to be Isolationist, please start by unplugging your computer and not asking anymore ridiculous and ignorant questions. And while your at it look up world history from 1930-1941. you might see some interesting things about what happens when you don't face a threat early enough.

This is not Vietnam, It will never be Vietnam no matter how much you and your depraved Ilk scream it is.

But you know what? I know I am talking to a brick wall, so thanks for the 2 points anyhow.

Answer 3

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and
injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted
down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S.
military
personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and
punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed
19 and
injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible
would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224
and
injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down
and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured
39
U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down
and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in
New
York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to
justice, we
have opponents charging him with being a war monger...

AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
casting
stones, it is a legitimate question.

There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively
cheap
software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors
terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton
Administration
spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than
Osama bin Laden?

THINK ABOUT IT!

It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her
forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to
be
written.

This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable
to
recall anything about past events while under oath!

If the dems would have had any b_lls to take care of this problems before Bush inhereted them, maybe we wouldn't be there right now.

Answer 4

CONGRESS is about to send 20,000-30,000 more troops to Iraq. You stupid Democratics obviously dont know the difference between Congress and the President, CONGRESS declares war and invasion, THE PRESIDENT is in charge of the Military once its there. Bush hasnt realesed his new plan for Iraq yet, but a troops surge and then a pull out would be best over the next few months.

Along w/ Saddam's death, a US Troop surge in major cities, mainly Baghdad, would draw out alot of the Insurgents. So then we could totally pull out in a few months becuase there will be far less Insurgents for the Iraqis to deal w/.

Answer 5

Iraq is but one Battle in a World War. We are fighting a Savage, Implacable Enemy who wants to destroy Western Society. We must be as Savage, Ruthless, and Implacable as they.

Many of my Friends are in The US Military. I Pray for them every Day. I also Pray for my President every Day. It is a very sad thing when our Soldiers are Killed, but they are Fighting, and Dieing for our Freedom.

Answer 6

STFU loser.... go ahead and have no life sitting in front of your computer and b*tching about everyone else who has given you the ability to sit on your fat lazy @ss

Answer 7

War is hell. It is also the US military which has provided the relative peace the US enjoys year after year.

Oh, and free advice to revelers, take the 5th, don't drink it.

Answer 8

K, I'll keep that in mind. You keep in mind that the Democrats all promised to bring the troops home if they were elected, so by the end of Jan they should be home and all will be peachy, right?

Answer 9

Hey Football, all your Democratic congress has to do to stop it is cut funding. Think they have the balls? Harry Reid has already stated he supports it for a short term. You think about it!

Answer 10

Bring the troops home! John Lennon said it best, "give peace a chance."

Happy New Year - Even to the Conservatives