would it lead to a faster resolution and less bloodshed.
2007-01-04 10:00:50 · 15 answers · asked by GJfromfla 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Certainly a lot of loud grousing is less than helpful. Anti-war folks seem to think that because they have a right to gripe, they may without adverse effect. But we know the primary goal of the guys who put out IED's is not to blow something up in Iraq but to get people in the US agitated. Doing exactly what your enemy wants is generally not a recipe for success. The real joke is the people who argue for immediate pullout but say they support the troops. You have to know nothing at all about modern war to believe something like that.
2007-01-04 16:55:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, we need for the other countries to step up to the plate. A faster resolution will never come even if everyone supported our actions in Iraq. We either need to bring the boys home or send them better and more support to stop the bloodshed.
2007-01-04 10:51:07 · answer #2 · answered by Janis L 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably not. It's not really our nation's division over this war, rather the ground conditions in Iraq. Yes, we are under-staffed over there, and full national support would probably lend itself to support for a draft which in turn would resolve that situation. However, it is the insurgency itself which is resulting in so much bloodshed.
2007-01-04 10:07:43 · answer #3 · answered by Owen 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sure ... but The Neo-Con war whores have started a genocidal purge that will not be restricted by borders, rationality, "international law," nor any other usual bulwark. Our only refuge is to try and educate the Arab world that they are being manipulated by the empire's old and tried method of divide and conquer - and only through reconciliation and unity will they have a chance of providing a safe environment for their children and a region free of continued bloodshed.
2007-01-04 10:03:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
even with the indisputable fact that I help the conflict, I agree which you will and might help the troops without helping the conflict. i'm unsure if this Starbucks tale you cite is rather real or only yet another e mail rumor, seems form of like the latter. in case you aspects a information source, like cnn/fox or a newspaper that backs it up then that'd be great for the needs of this question. If the tale is real, then I agree that Starbucks is a douche for doing that and that i could in all probability not be paying for his or her espresso for it gradual (in undemanding terms I element like is their frapuccinos). it is comparable, even with the indisputable fact that in step with danger not as extreme, as what a number of the liberal whack jobs, like Ann Garrison, have been doing in San Francisco while they have been attempting to get a petition for his or her government to declare the Blue Angels and Fleet Week unwelcome interior the city. the reason, they pronounced, replaced into because of the fact the Blue Angels are an insidious recruiting gadget for the protection tension (which everyong is conscious besides, vast marvel), and that the protection tension replaced into being utilized by the U.S. government to assist unlawful wars meant to scouse borrow materials from 0.33-international countries. My opinion of it is equivalent to this alleged Starbucks tale - the Blue Angels are the face of the protection tension workers and Fleet Week an expression of sailors' service to their united states. Rejecting it is distinctly lots a slap interior the face of the troops. i in my view help seeing the Iraq conflict with the aid of till the rustic is stabilized and am happy to be certain that because of the artwork of our troops and the quite a few ideas-set taken because of the fact the surge, that it is now attainable. i will conform to disagree with and appreciate people who opt for to withdraw yet nevertheless help our troops as long as they are stored there. i won't appreciate in any respect those people who hate on the troops because of the fact of mess ups of the politicians.
2016-12-15 10:06:26 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can the U.S. people support the U.S. Government's actions in Iraq?
I think most people support the troops, oh yeah, but not the actions, I mean, what are we still doing in Iraq????
2007-01-04 11:10:15 · answer #6 · answered by Brenda E 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we should pull Hallibuton Company out so the jobs will be available to the Iraqi's. Then we keep the military there or even increase them to act as protection to those who truly want to rebuild their country. We hear on the news about Iraqi college professors joining the police because that's the only jobs available. If they can go to work, they'll be far less likely to turn to radical means of supporting themselves.
2007-01-04 10:13:33 · answer #7 · answered by nursesr4evr 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NOT at ALL....
We are going to LOSE in IRAQ..hands down
We do not have any IDEA what we are doing over there
what do you think...all those insurgents are gonna ..give up and go to work at BURGER KING
They have everything to GAIN...nothing to LOSE.....face it...they have lotsa support and no where to go.
Americans will crawl away....losers...guarenteed
2007-01-04 11:11:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it would lead to more, because our actions in Iraq are not honorable.
2007-01-04 10:03:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Possibly. But US citizens differ in what they think and always will. In may other countries people dare not express disagreement with those in power,
2007-01-04 10:10:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋