Why are Americans against the war in Iraq when the soldiers support it and believe in it's cause?

Question

I have known many soldiers who have been in Fallujha, Bahgdad, and other parts of Iraq and they have seen up close and personal the daily lives of the Iraqis and how they support the soldiers. Why is it that we as Americans do not belive in what is going on and our soldiers? Weither we like it or not, we are the police of the world and you tell me, if you see your neighbor dragging his wife and kids through your neighborhood and beating them, would you stand there in your window watching, go out there and fight him, or close your blinds? President Bush is doin exactly what is right for Iraq and us. If that same neighbor threatens to come after you after he's done with his family, would you allow him into your home or would you go out there and fight him and keep him away from your family? Now understand that your neighbor is Saddam, Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and his family is the Iraqi people and your family is the United States Americans. You decide

Saddam is affiliated with Alqaeda and Bin Laden. He was a major player in their funding and through out his home you will see gifts given to him from them personally. I hate when people want to speak on an issue because they followed it on the news. The news feeds the Americans garbage that sells because we are so short sided. Watch the un-edited video with Hannity interviewing the soldiers who are currently out in Iraq, the tour of Saddams home. I really must say, please don't watch the news to get your information. You must understand that each newsstation has a political view, either democratic or Republican. The only man in the news that I can vouch for allowing both sides of the story to take place is Bill O'Reily. As well as Hannity, (coincedentaly are both on Fox News). If you do respond I would love to have a way to contact some of you to discuss it further. I wont be responding to the idiotic answers, but rather to the ones that show some intellegence in their sources.

Saddam is affiliated with Alqaeda and Bin Laden. He was a major player in their funding and through out his home you will see gifts given to him from them personally. I hate when people want to speak on an issue because they followed it on the news. The news feeds the Americans garbage that sells because we are so short sided. Watch the un-edited video with Hannity interviewing the soldiers who are currently out in Iraq, the tour of Saddams home. I really must say, please don't watch the news to get your information. You must understand that each newsstation has a political view, either democratic or Republican. The only man in the news that I can vouch for allowing both sides of the story to take place is Bill O'Reily. As well as Hannity, (coincedentaly are both on Fox News). If you do respond I would love to have a way to contact some of you to discuss it further. I wont be responding to the idiotic answers, but rather to the ones that show some intellegence in their sources.

Answer 1

Because the soldiers are there LIVING it and they actually SEE what is going on while the rest of us are here listening to mostly biased news accounts, and good news is no news. Would be a good idea for those who so quickly condemn to actually listen to a vet and ask his opinions. God bless them for keeping us all safe and doing what few of us could or would.. They all volunteered and MANY reenilsted, that alone should tell people a lot.

Answer 2

I'm not really sure where to start with this one... I've been to Iraq recently and was working with intel teams at the very start of this mess also. Iraqi citizens support the soldiers for many reasons. One of which is to gain intelligence on us. You would be amazed how much information soldiers spew that they shouldn't.

For the most part soldiers support each other because they live in the suck and have to do a less than glamorous job in that region. Most, however don't have a full grasp of the socio-political situation that they are supporting. Soldiers understand the area in which they work, but don't have visibility over other provinces and the nation as a whole. There are some serious disconnects between the talks and plans on a national level and the bubbas going out on patrol. It's very tough to win hearts and minds (which is the current posture of the war effort) when you have young guys on patrol harassing the locals. It's not all the time, but most of it.

Also, can anyone tell me who the enemy is and what they look like? Asymmetric warfare is a losing venture. The enemy has no geograhic boundary or recignizable uniform. If patrols increase in an area they lay dormant until the pressure goes away or create more casualties by laying IED/VBIEDs which are very difficult to detect if at all.

As for the Hannity comment... wow... you may want to see how the US is viewed in international news media. Take some time to look inward from outside your little bubble.

I still haven't found the connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. The terrorists from 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I can not recall any gifts from terrorists in any of Saddam's Palaces (he didn't live in a house). I've been to a few of them. He was so paranoid of being killed that he moved to a different palace daily, and required that a formal meal be prepared at every palace for every meal just in case he showed up there. His travel patterns were only known by him for this reason.

The US may want to focus a little more attention on the sleeping terror cells within out borders. Fighting terrorists in Iraq does not make this country safer. It does however give terrorists a lot more practice at killing in their region. With improved skills they can then do similar acts here.

Answer 3

no human being argues scuffling with the terrorists, purely the thoughts of doing that. Afghanistan-actually. If although, we will adjust a coverage the U. S. has had for decades and commence invading and overthrowing each united states of america that would have the flair to be a base for terrorists, we will be real busy. This record would propose we invade Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, (seen what their youthful ones are being taught of their faculties???), Palestinian territories, the Phillipines, Indonesia and do not even get me began on the flair threats from N. Korea. the finished area is destabilizing because of this actual determination of the position we despatched our efficient adult adult males and ladies in uniform. We owe them more suitable than to placed them in an unwinnable conflict like this interior the first position. How can they now end a civil conflict?!?

Answer 4

a. soldiers do what they're told, they don't make decision, politicians do. and soldiers have no more right to judge what we're doing, given how invested they are in the outcome, they are less likely to be capable independent judgement. and of course the iraqis support the troops, now that saddam is gone, the troops are the only thing seperating the iraqi people from the bloodshed we brought
b. just because some people are living better lives does not mean most are, in fact given that more people are getting hurt and dying, and there is far less stability and more violence than under saddam, it's fair to say most are living in worse conditions.
c. your analogy is both inane and inaccurate. if we are the world's police, then we should go after the countries that not only have dicatatorships and that actually pose a threat, like belarus, pakistan, iran, saudi arabia and others. all of those countries either have nuclear facilities or the capability to quickly acquire them, and lots of anti-american feeling. iraq was never in a position to hurt us. america has always been hypocritical in foreign policy. we prop up ruthless dictatorships when it suits us, like we did with saddam and are doing with saudi arabia and pakistan, regardless of how horrible they are. we clsoe our blinds most of the time, and go out to fight only when the guy has something we want. iraq was a convenient target for a number of reasons, but not because they were the most threatening.
d. al-qaeda was not involved in iraq, and iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (at least according to bush)

Answer 5

Are you serious??

I was about to give a serious answer but then you said 'the only person who gives a fair and balanced view is... BILL O'REILLY??! and HANNITY?!!?!'

My God. Are you insane? These are the most blatantly biased pro-war, pro-Bush presenters on American news! I really hope one day people like you wake up, I really do...

So you support the cause in Iraq do you? Which one would that be then? The WMDs? Or was it the removal of a dictator? Or installing democracy? Or because its the 'central front' in fighting terrorism? Or because Al-Qaeda are there? To give Iraqis freedom maybe?

Which one is it really? Perhaps.... the OIL?!

Answer 6

Because a lot of Americans don't listen to what the soldiers have to say. The soldiers know the truth of what is going on in Iraq. Some Americans would rather believe what they hear on CNN.

Answer 7

President Bush is swimming upstream. I admire the leader that he is who has courage to go against the tide of people who have not thought the Iraq War through. Let's join him and give it a try. Let's win. We are the United States of America.

Answer 8

I believe deep down, Americans do not completely understand why we are there. We only see what the media shows us. Another thing is that we just simply wished our young people were back home. I'm very proud of what they are doing, even though I don't know exactly everything they are doing. Make sense?

Answer 9

Its allot like Vietnam,as Marines we wanted to complete the mission. we did not know what the political views were.

Back here people did not want us to get killed.However in Vietnam we had a reason for being there.

Answer 10

Wow. The only one you can trust to show both sides of the news is Bill O'Reilly? I think even he admits to being an unabashed right-wing hawk. If you agree with him, that's fine, but please don't try to argue that he's at all unbiased.