Let's face it. Bush made his new policy (add 20K troops) and it is just as stupid as starting the war. I don't believe in cut and run, but I don't believe in staying the course. What should we do in Iraq to get our boys home, but the war won?
2007-01-31 07:21:08 · 13 answers · asked by Sir Nigel 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
ok...this is probably inappropriate as I do not really have an answer...just some things to ponder.
Things that make you think a little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea .
North Korea never attacked us ..
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.
d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us .
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us . He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a
platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea without
firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own
people.
The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.
But Wait
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile
sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida !!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB !
The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts
2007-01-31 07:30:16 · answer #1 · answered by sammiejane67 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
against the Iraq warfare yet on account that we began it we could end it. of direction there is the possibility that with Saddam in power we would have at last had to bypass to warfare in some unspecified time interior the destiny. Who knows? I purely think of the money could have been extra effective spent interior the US on significant different and youngsters power progression. ideas you, i'm not some fool who's blindly anti-warfare or anti-militia. until every physique interior the international ceases to be aggressive there'll continually be a desire for a militia. as long as countries compete for land and supplies there will be warfare. people who marketing campaign to end all wars or get rid of the militia stay in a dreamworld.
2016-12-13 05:30:06 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What we should have done at the beginning
pull everybody out that is on our side(troops, reporters, blah blah blah) and just start bombing
and dont stop until they turn themselves in
murderers? I would rather be considered that - then to have the terrorists fear us - when there is nothing to fear!
They better be damn scared of Americans, or any other culture different then there own!
This fear - input back into them will get us back that what we once had
2007-01-31 07:28:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Make Iraq the 51st state or get the $uck out and use the money we save to develop alternate energy sources making their oil as worthless as a screen door on a submarine.
2007-01-31 07:30:06 · answer #4 · answered by lunatic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
George W. Bush does not have the power to send soliers without congress. Congress is disagreeing with him. He WON'T be able to soldiers. Plus, his approval rating is under 30 percent. Soon, he will be impeached or fired out of office. In my opinion, we should get out of the war and do what is best.
2007-01-31 07:29:24 · answer #5 · answered by Quentin Grzyb 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cutting our losses right now and leaving is not a good idea right now, but I beleive we need the help of more middle eastern countries because it has become a war concerning culture and beliefs. We don't know enough or have enough clout to contain this situation.
2007-01-31 07:27:09 · answer #6 · answered by jden16 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all we need to decide if Iraq has an actual commitment to a democracy or not. If they're willing to put their butts and their dollars on the line instead of ours then maybe they will be more motivated to move past the factions, etc.
2007-01-31 07:30:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. Did you see the news this morning about how much money we (tax payers) have spent to build building there that were not built well and some had to be town down? Pathetic. Wish we could get rid of GWB.
2007-01-31 07:24:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bring the troops back home, cause they don't want to be at peace with us. but bush can't handle that countried just want to be nutral
2007-01-31 07:30:59 · answer #9 · answered by Mysterious 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares if it is won? Bring those men and women back because no life is worth this. NONE
2007-01-31 07:25:22 · answer #10 · answered by Tek ~aka~Legs! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋