I'm just wondering if conservatives...?

Question

would still support the invasion of Iraq today, knowing that president Bush wants 20 billion dollars, and an additional 20,000 or more troops to try and resolve the current situation there? If you do, please explain why?

Basically I'm wondering if conservatives feel different now that things aren't going the way the president indicated they should have. And if they think more troops and money could make the difference, the way the president is hoping they will.

Answer 1

That money could have been better spent on the infrastructure of the U.S.A. EXAMPLE: Gulf coast and New Orleans, Southern and Northern boarders from 25 million illegal immigrants, research in alternative power resources, education, health care, agriculture, and expansion of our military at home and abroad. Bush should have completed his mission and captured Osama Bin Laden, and the rest of the Saudi/Pakistani bunch. Bush was blindsided by war profiteering and oil (GREED) Bush has his foot in his mouth with the Iraq debacle.

Answer 2

I'm not really conservative and I never really supported the war in Iraq, but I remember a general making a statement before the war that they would need a whole lotta troops be able to win the war, and I believed him because, unlike Bush, I knew there would be an insurgency after the fall of Saddam. Every time a regime falls in a country, factions fight for power, as they are in Iraq. In fact, the only occasion in which that has not happened was in the Revolutionary War, but we had a Congress throughout the war that helped us out of it as well. So, in my opinion, if Bush really wanted to win the war, he should have sent a gazillion troops in Iraq in the first place, and I guess he realizes that and is trying to make up for his mistake. I'm not saying I support the troop surge or anything, but only because I never supported the war in the first place. A troop surge, however, would be the only way to win the war.

Answer 3

I am well aware that Bush wants more money and troops for Iraq and I support his position.

I firmly believe if we were not taking action in Iraq that we would have already had more attacks in the US that would make 9-11 look like childs play. I believe that if we don't settle the problem now that we will just have to deal with the problem somewhere else in the world maybe even here in the US.

Answer 4

I never thought my opinion mattered on what was needed financially or militarily. Facts do not need approval, maybe that is what liberals do not grasp. I do not want to pay more than $150 for my light bill but it still cost me $225. The war expenses are often the same way - we can not limit bullets or weapons because we are over budget. As the mother of an Army Officer, I do not want supplies & safety budgeted by people at home that do not know what it cost to win the war. So yes, I still support the President of the United States & the Military. They come as a package during war time.

Answer 5

He wants 257 billion, not 20 billion. The reason I support the administration is because there is lots of information about Iraq that we're not privy to as civilians. There were lots of things I knew about current and future ops in Iraq while I served there last year, but we couldn't release that info without putting troops in danger.

Besides, I know that it takes a lot of money to keep troops in boots, bullets and beans. In my mind, there's nothing more important. I personally don't see how 20,000 troops will make a difference, esp now that the enemy knows what we're planning to do and has already come up with a counter move (idiot press), but if Gen. Petraeus says he wants more troops, then send more troops. He knows more about that country and war than almost anyone.

Answer 6

Yes, I would. There reason is obvious; there can be no political solution without first having security. The extra troops are needed in order to help the Iraqi military and police clear and hold areas currently controlled by both the Shi'ia militias and the Sunni insurgents. Once a semblance of security has been obtained, the Iraqi politicians can resume their work, and that will ultimately lead to a U.S. withdrawal. The elements of al-Qaeda in the Al Anbar province also need to be severely dealt with, and a portion of these new troops will be able to aid the Iraqis in that mission as well. I think we should all give General Petraeus a shot at getting this thing done.

Answer 7

With a Nick like yours, I doubt you even know where Iraq is.
I say put 100,000 more in there, clean house.....hang all terrorists
which are mostly Iranian on the spot.....SAME AS WE DID IN GERMANY AFTER WWII.

Thank God there werent very many liberals then, we would be speaking either German or Japanese.

You pansy *** liberals make me want to puke.
Have you seen the 4 beheadings, from a few years ago.
You dont think they are watching, CNN, Fox, using our own liberals against us, Guess what....they are smart enough not to do it anymore not to turn public opinion against them. Doesnt mean they wont behead your ignorant anus.

Where have you been the last 10 years. All the attacks. Embassies, U.S. Warship, WTC,

What makes you think they won't hit a mall, or highschool, or day care center......those are pieces of cake compared to the other
sites. Wise up.....don't be an idiot all your life.

Answer 8

Great question! I want to hear that answer, too. And I hope nobody gives the excuse of giving freedom to the Iraqi people. There are people who live under terrible leaders all over the world. Iraq happens to sit on a HUGE oil reserve.

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

... because they have it in their heads that "terrorists" are being killed by the millions in Iraq... and if we weren't there, then they would be over here...

asking them for any proof to support their argument (any part of it, either that Iraq really has anything to do with terror, we're killing terrorists, these are terrorists that would attack us, these are terrorist that could attack us, even if they wanted too, who these terrorists are)... then it gets tricky... and all they have is "I heard this one thing on Fox News or Rush that I don't have a cite for... (and what they heard, didn't even support any aspect of their argument the vast majority of the time)...

basically... they think it's a big game of cowboys and Indians... and don't care about the facts, logistics or reality of the situation...

of course all conservatives don't think this way... but many do...