The question should be do you support the current "Conservative think tank" that's the president's flavor of the month. Think tanks have been and still are the architects of most of the President's policies (First PNAC and currently the American Enterprise Institute). In this case, no I do not support the President's favorite think tank.
The war in Iraq was won. We are currently helping Iraqis police a civil war (or brutal sectarian violence, whichever you prefer). I do support helping Iraqis get on their feet so they can police their own country. However, I see an open ended commitment (which will be denied by the President, but after 4 years and no real benchmarks, I'd say that's pretty open ended) as a bad idea.
2007-01-22 09:49:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mrs. Bass 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
NO! I do not support this massacre. I hope the troops come home and fight the TRUE WAR. The war on corruption. Our government is corrupt to the core. Both parties. There needs to be a serious purge and push for nationalism. Learn about the New World Order and what they are planning. World War 3 is what they want and when they attack Iran and Syria it will begin. We gotta stop it.
And its nice to see the paid fake bloggers trying to still sway opinion to support Bush when everyone knows you are liars and traitors. His approval rating is so so low and and probably worse than the actual poll. I think its below 20% in reality.
2007-01-22 10:05:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't care about the approval ratings or his popularity. I have a mind of my own and I think according to what makes the best sense to me. I'm a supporter of Bush. I'm also a supporter of the importance of this war and the consequences if we fail. I'm not a supporter of how things are going now. I do support his new plan and think it can work depending on the Iraqi government. Top commanders in Iraq said that if the plan works accordingly, then we can start withdrawing the escalation by the end of summer. But this is based on the circumstances at that time. I've never been one to criticize something that hasn't been done yet. So I'm willing to give it a chance and see if it turns up any positive results. I'm against war and the casualties, but sometimes it is necessary to allow freedom to prevail. I know, thumbs down for me because I'm a Bush supporter and a supporter of the war. But it doesn't matter, I'm my own person and I believe in what makes the most sense to me.
2007-01-22 09:54:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
I support neither the President nor the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The president is a puppet who says what he is told to say by his minders. When he doesn't have a prepared speech, he struggles to put a cohesive comprehensible sentence together.
The wars in Iraq & Afghanistan (& probably Iran soon) are achieving nothing except a growing loss of lives - locals and coalition troops (US, British, Australian). Please remember there are other nations fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan - it is not a one band show.
Apparently the Vietnam War taught the US nothing. The Russian occupation of Afghanistan taught the US nothing. The historical reluctance of colonial powers to formally annexe Iraq taught the US nothing. The action in Somalia taught the US nothing.
Do not interfere in the domestic politics of another country unless you are asked to do so. Do not assume because the US is the self styled and self appointed policeman of the world that it has the authority to attack sovereign nations no matter who is the leader.
I find it curious that the US had the balls to attack a weaker nation like Iraq but did not take on the USSR. Very strange.
2007-01-22 10:07:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Flab 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The man's presidency has been a disaster. Consider:
1) the mess in Iraq. He should have concentrated his troops on Afganistan, and brought down Bin Ladin. Then we would have one success, instead of two failures.
2) the deficit is at record levels. We will be paying his bills for at least a decade after he leaves office.
3) His administration has covered up scientists' warnings about global warming. If the Earth reaches a "tipping point" our civilization may be destroyed.
4) By attacking Iraq, Bush almost crippled the United Nations (because he ignored the fact that the UN did not support the invasion).
Yes I am glad that Saddam is gone, but at what price?
2007-01-22 09:51:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Crazy Eagle 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
i'm fascinated in it, no longer purely using fact of Iran's plans for bobbing up Nuclear weapons for for a number of here motives earlier in 1979 and bunch of Islamic extremist followers held a bunch of human beings hostage for over a 365 days. US military diver Robert Stethem, a US military diver who in 1988 replaced into onboard a commercial airplane while it replaced into hijacked by using Islamic extremists. He replaced into tortured and killed and his physique dumped out the door like rubbish. The bombing of the US Embassy in Lebanon the place over 250 marines have been killed. i ought to pass on and on the record is going all the earlier to the late 70's. the undemanding thread is the Iranians the two perpetrated those acts promptly or they helped practice and fund the Islamic extremist communities. Iran has been at conflict with us circuitously for 30 years we've in basic terms disregarded it. Now that's time for payback, you will get on your knees and thank Allah that i'm no longer President, if i replaced into the only factor left in Iran top now may be Oil wells and smoking craters. I served interior the army between 89-ninety one and am a desolate tract hurricane vet, If there's a floor conflict in Iran i will do my superb to come back on lively accountability so i can situation some payback promptly. My motto would be "Nuke their a$$ and take the gasoline" Have a astounding day!
2016-11-01 00:43:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
no i don't support because -
1.100,000+ innocent civilians have died since the US invaded Iraq in March, 2003
2.Iraqis view US as Occupiers
3.The War Is Bad for the Economy
4.no country can eradicate terrorism by war
5.The Iraq War Was Always Based On Shaky Evidence and Bad Intel.
6.A war on Iraq for the purpose of "regime change" would not be a legal war under international law.
......
......
.......
100 many more reasons can be listed down.
2007-01-22 10:05:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by james 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes and Yes! Approval #'s are manipulated all the time... don't mean squat. My opinion is this war is justified by the intelligence at the time, just as WWII was. We should all be able to agree that Sadam and his family were really bad people... a legitimate court of his peers has proven that.
So no matter what people say now, a free Iraq, and fewer terrorists (they are being brought into the political processes) will help keep the western world as we know it, a little safer for us and our kids and grandkids.
2007-01-22 09:57:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by Lee W 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
I'm no military expert, but it seems like a lose-lose situation. If we stay, casualities will continue to increase, while the Shiite and Sunni continue to butcher each other. If we leave, then there will be even more chaos. This Iraq war has made us weaker over the last four years, despite the valiant efforts of our troops.
2007-01-22 09:49:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by hansblix222 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Nope. I do not believe in him and this stupid war that he has started. I think he slahsed out cause of his famous daddy former President George Herber Bush. Every one know s that Sadam had his daddy on the hit list. Nevertheless, the war has always been wrong in my eyes. If I had my way let them kill them selves all off.
2007-01-22 09:49:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by angelikabertrand64 5
·
1⤊
2⤋