2007-01-21 07:21:29 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
NO!!!!! Even though my parents are republicans, i am SO agaisnt Bush's idea!!! War is not the answer!!!
2007-01-21 07:27:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
What is been done right now is really Reinforcements of our forces over there in Iraq (long over due in my opinion), same thing that has been done in all the wars in the past, when military forces are overwhelm with enemies attacking them, and this was the overdue solution to the real problem in Iraq, since all along (and from the begining) the problem in Iraq has been.... not enough troops!!, a war done on the cheap in the begining, by not having the forces necesary to secure the country after the invasion properly, hence it got out of control! that was rummy fault, the true guilty party in this mess. General Powell doctrine which worked brilliantly in the 91Gulf War should have been followed in this Gulf War but wasn't,: "if you get in a war, get in it with everything you have or don't get in at all!"
As to the argument that it is too late...? I say it is 50-50, half a chance to fail half a chance to work... we will see in the next 6 months.
2007-01-22 22:01:12 · answer #2 · answered by Krytox1a 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What is the difference between admitting defeat now ( and it is lost) and admitting in 6 or 12 months.answer ----- more dead people , who knows how many. "Condi- war criminal Rice stated on capitol a few days ago when asked if there was a reasonable estimate of how many more lives might be lost in Iraq she responded that no-body in the administration knew.
2007-01-21 07:33:18 · answer #3 · answered by amigo 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
And where do you get your intelligence to know what or what not should be done in this war? You read the paper and listen to all the liberals rant and rave, maybe even some for the war. but that isn't enough to make this kind of decision. Did you graduate from Harvard and do you have any kind of military and goverment experiance on the kind of level the president has?
2007-01-21 07:27:47 · answer #4 · answered by Brianne 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's not a matter of them being there, it's a matter of the U.S. needing to put more money into better equipment and armor for our troops and sending in more support so we don't have tired groups going out on missions with not enough man power. These things would dramatically decrease the death toll for all.
2007-01-21 07:25:41 · answer #5 · answered by 2007 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
What has one got to do with the other? Of course it's right. We must win. While one American death is one too many, during WWII we lost 25 troops or more every hour.
2007-01-21 07:26:25 · answer #6 · answered by Rick N 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
First off I don't see anything wrong with Hellhole Iraq. Second lets not send our troops but instead one magical bomb
2007-01-21 07:25:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Freedom isn't free, not for us or for them.
Can you imagine the world today if we had not gone to Europe
to fight Hitler?
Well imagine yourself having to kneel unwillingly on a prayer
rug 5 times a day or having your head cut off.
Thats the alternative of not fighting Islamic terrorism.
2007-01-21 07:27:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Yes. If we are going to stay then we need to put enough troops there so they can defend themselves. And yes, I believe we should stay until the job is done.
2007-01-21 07:32:20 · answer #9 · answered by penhead72 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Thats like saying after losing a battle, should we surrender the war? If anything, I think it shows we need more people over there to kill the killers!
2007-01-21 07:28:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
And Yes!!! Iraq is a Hell Hole...any war zone is....
The World Trade Center was a Hell Hole on 911
2007-01-21 07:34:22 · answer #11 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋