English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It is the worst of times in Iraq. With most Americans disapproving of the way the President’s handling the war, this has been one of the bloodiest weekends for American forces over there…a total of 27 GI’s dead in just two days, and at least 78 Iraqi civilians killed by two nearly simultaneous car bombings.

http://www.geraldo.com/v5/War-Correspondence.gr

2007-01-28 07:49:43 · 17 answers · asked by WORD UP G 1 in Politics & Government Military

17 answers

Those who committed 911 were Saudis ... what does going into Iraq have to do with Saudis?

There were no WMD.

There were no missiles pointed at Israel.

The Iraqi people never asked for help.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed by internal strife.

America has literally torn that country apart. The previous government was restrictive, but things are now much, much worse. A recent survey of the Iraqi people suggests that 70% of the people in Iraq want the USA out --- NOW.

There are no actually proven links between Saddam and the perpetrators of 911 ... only allegations.

The biggest conspiracy theory of all-time is that some debilitated and sickly diabetic named OBL took down the twin towers while operating out of a remote cave with only a cell phone in hand.

2007-01-28 07:57:50 · answer #1 · answered by americansneedtowakeup 5 · 2 1

I think getting rid of their dictator was probably the only positive that has come out of this. Everything else is a mess. Yet they still use the toppling of Saddam Hussein to justify everything that has happened since. Many people (not all) in middle eastern countries are born into a violent way of life and probably don't know any other way, so I don't think they are ever going to get rid of the insurgents. I've never been there but from what I've seen through the media, they get up every morning, to fight another day. That would be awful, especially for the kids. Not to mention the allied troops and their families.

2007-01-28 16:07:53 · answer #2 · answered by samootch 2 · 0 1

When you don't read history, you are likely to repeat it.

WWII should have taught us to keep a large standing Military ( 1 % of the population is not too much), because there will always be a war of sorts that we will get embroiled in.

WWII ended in 1945 and by 1950 we had the type of Military one would expect to find in a country the size of Malta. We entered Korea with a "Hooligan Army" and with equipment that should have been buried.

We did it again after Korea and we will do it again and again forever...until we elect a Smart Congress of former military people ( unless they have been bought.)

You cannot win a war by dribbling in a few men at a time. You have to slam the enemy with everything you have and cripple him before he gets a chance to start fighting.

That saves you your men and earns you your victory.

We started Iraqi that way then we cut back to satisfy our Congress and now we are allowing the enemy to control the war.

2007-01-28 16:28:50 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Been there 4 · 1 0

Iraq will never be stable. It will end up like another Vietnam and Korea. The sad thing is when the pullout starts, the poor bastards who are left holding up the rear will be the most vulnerable with not enough troop support. The bottom line in Iraq is you cannot help a country who has no interest in helping itself. You are never gonna change 14 centuries of tribal infighting (Sunni's and Shites)

2007-01-28 16:08:15 · answer #4 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 1 1

everytime an american dies over there, we more freer then before. he is president for a reason and we should follow his command, get it commander and cheif? the terrorists win if we pull out. im sick of this socialist media and their agenda is counting numbers. why dont you count how many reports spew oral diahrea into out televissing set every night. that would be some news. any coward can blow off a car-bomb but it takes a man to shoot a small child. we are putting and end to terrorism. if not, well let the demlicans use their liberal socialist agenda and ruin everything were fighting for. at least none of us are worrying about wmds.

2007-01-28 16:54:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

I tell you what , all you non believing Dems are gonna be pissed when we Americans Win this war. You all are going to look like pathetic pieces of cow dung! It is a shame that you people flat out do not want the USA to win this war. What a shame!

2007-01-28 16:17:34 · answer #6 · answered by tbird 3 · 1 0

i've never really THOUGHT about it, so to speak, but i know what bush says about it, and that's that we will stay the course. i know that the people who flew the planes into our buildings had the same color of skin as the people in the country we are at war with. i know that all the movie stars in the action movies i saw growing up would want us to kick some serious *** and take names. i know that killing is ok if you do it in another country to people who don't speak the same language as you.

2007-01-28 16:52:26 · answer #7 · answered by ccr152 2 · 0 1

I'm really against it because three of my friends brothers were killed in the past year and it just breaks peoples heart seeing a loved one go,yeah I'm against Bush too on this whole thing too.

2007-01-28 15:58:28 · answer #8 · answered by emily 1 · 2 1

We have to do something different. I think authorizing the soldiers to take out Iranian agents was smart, but the overall strategy is not as efficient as it should be.

2007-01-28 15:55:27 · answer #9 · answered by Daniel 6 · 2 0

the terrorists know if they keep it up they can sway public feeling and wimpy dem congress people into forcing the president to give up.

they think they can keep the "surge" from happening. they believed Osama when he said we're a paper tiger, and it would appear he was right. i never would have thought my own country would give up.

2007-01-28 15:55:09 · answer #10 · answered by political junkie 4 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers