Because it's the trendy thing to do...look at all those stupid Hollywood 5th column celebrities, telling their fans how they should vote and think and live, and the sheeple just bleat for more. People are always looking for a band-wagon to jump on. I have said many times, there is no way this current generation of young people could have won World War 2. (I wonder how many thumbs-down marks I'll get for saying this) Thanks for your service, SGM, I was there the first time in '91 too!
2007-02-10 05:17:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Marc B. 3
·
2⤊
4⤋
There are people that are over there believing that what they are doing is for the betterment of the US and for Iraq. Trust me I know, I have not only hubby but his unit over there telling me what is going on for the most part, I mean I have a friend that has been over there for 450 days and while yes he wants to be home, he is going to be there until the mission is complete.
The media in the US has twisted many things with this war because they feel they have that right. I think that you need to study before you can argue one way or another. I am a graduate level student in Military history and I personally do not think that I know enough about this war to make a educated assessment on the strengths and weaknesses of this war compared to others.
There is many good things that the soldiers are doing that they can not/ will not tell anyone because they don't see it as anything special beside mission objectives.
I don't think that 9/11 will look like a fireworks show, we do not need to completely leave, but we also need to listen to the iraqi's and if they no longer want us there, and with our mission already being accomplished there is no reason for us to still be there in that sense. There are reasons to be there and it DOES not have to do with President Bush wanting oil money. There are more complex issues then that going on and no one will know for at least the next 20 years if that, considering there are new censorship and disclosure rules coming into effect.
2007-02-10 05:30:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Hawaiisweetie 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
1 - Theory goes, they already are here. Sleeper cells waiting for their next order.
2 - Are they here because of the first one? I think there was an increase because of the first one.
3- Is the 20K surge really a strategy to win the war or a political one. It's non-committal surge.
I think it's political ploy by the pubes knowing the Dems would not support any increase. This will make people think that the Dems do not support the troops.
If the pubes were serious about the surge, they would have recommended doubling the troops. If that were the case, the American public would not have supported the increase.
4- Americans need to stand up against leaving the troops in Iraq, the same way Americans protested the Vietnam war.
A pull-out hurts the pride, but 4K in 4 yrs is a real possibility. I don't remember when the first 1000 death was recorded, but I think it took about 2 yrs plus. The next 1000 was shorter, the next 1000 even shorter. You do the math (hint: it's exponential).
5-6-7... if you stay the course, go back to 1 and 2.
Note: I do one-word answers because I wanted to be first!!! TY. I am.
2007-02-10 05:13:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by AK1971 2
·
1⤊
4⤋
Mostly one could protest the war becase:
a) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
b) We were told there were weapons of mass destruction, and none have been found, making the premise for the war at best an incredible misunderstanding, and at worst a complete lie. If our mission was to rid Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction, then I say Mission Accomplished, let's get out.
c) We are blowing billions and billions and billions of dollars over there while worrying about health care and education and social security and jobs over here.
d) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
e) Killing tribal people only makes them want to kill you more.
f) Iraq was not a terrorist hotbed until we invaded. Saudi Arabia, however, was. But they are better friends so we didn't attack them. Which tells me that this war isn't really about stopping terrorism.
g) Afghanistan harbored Osama, but we only have ~18,000 troops there. And our "President" said, to paraphrase, that he doesn't really think about him all that much. Which tells me this war isn't about justice for 9/11 (even if you believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which it didn't).
h) If we are going to fight a war to stop oppression, we should be in Darfur where genocide is currently underway. Which tells me this current war is not about bringing good will to the world.
i) The war may very well be illegal according to international standards and treaties that we have signed on to. Whether the current regime of pundits and experts and Attorneys General think such treaties are quaint is irrelevant.
j) Halliburton. KBR. Blackwater.
k) You can't "spread" democracy if the people don't cooperate. Also, we're not a democracy, so who are we trying to kid?
l) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
This is not to say that I don't appreciate the efforts of our troops. I come from a long line of military men and I understand the sacrifice, I just don't believe that you and your friends should sacrifice anything in this war on my account.
Support the troops - protest the war and bring them home.
2007-02-10 05:33:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by vegasdog 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
In fact it is the military that knows nothing; they are fighting tools for those who hold the balance of real power. Many people who protest indeed know v. little but instinctively feel when their herd is being led over a cliff. 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do w. Iraq, it was a v. handy (possibly engineered) excuse for finishing off the original Gulf war and installing a puppet government to permanently control the world oil market.
I've got an old hammer that was good for knocking in nails but it never could read the blue prints so even though it's experienced and retired I'll trust myself to read the real plans!
2007-02-10 05:26:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
You're speaking from the standpoint of the constitution you swore to uphold and defend and the protection you guaranteed to your nation against it's enemies. You look at it from the standpoint that just because you don't believe in the way things have unfolded or they way they've been handled that something must be done to show that the US isn't going to turnt their cheeck to a terrorist, otherwise we open up our arms for all sorts of attacks.
While I agree it's unfortunate that people protest and say things like they hate the military (when what they mean is they hate war) or they oppose the war because they think we should be going around handing out hugs and kisses, what we have to realize is that while we're fighting foreign terrorism we are also defending domestic ignorance. American soldiers have to fight for the right for morons to publicly bash our military and public leaders.
Anyone that's had to fight in war knows it sucks and nobody wants to be there. But as fighting men and women also know is that if people are out protesting the war then that means the military is doing it's job because Joe Schmo wasn't lynched or hanged for talking against the government. So when someone says something stupid or completely disrespectful I just look at them and tell them how glad I am to see that they're enjoying that whole "freedom thing"!
2007-02-10 05:18:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by dapoetic1 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Speak for your self! I joined the military when I found out that we were going to war, but do to medical problems they kicked me out! I saw how many people they reject just joining the military, and sometimes it is for stupid reasons! The military dose not have enough grunts, and they will not get more if they are as stricked as they are! Yes it is great to support the war, but you have to look at the numbers and the chances of winning the war as well! Concern turns into fear and fear turns in to protesting, but it can be stopped if more people try to change it! We should make them be less stricked, and you should join! And get everyone that you know to try to join!
2007-02-10 05:46:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by princeessintraning 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thank you for your service.
They jump up in protest because its the "cool" thing to do. For the youngest protesters, that's what such luminary analysts as P. Diddy, Kanye West, and a whole list of communist....oops I mean celebrities tell them to do.
For others its the fact that the war was started under a Republican administration. I'm sure you remember that Clinton had troops strung out all over the globe but that was ok. If a Dem. wins next time it will suddenly become "ok" to win the war.
2007-02-10 05:31:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Because all civillians want peace and it makes sense that war isn't peace, and that's why the war in iraq needs to stop, and for that to happen, one side must withdraw... but that ain't happening now, so it's sad. And not all militarymen serving in iraq and afghanistan even want to be there. I think Donald "too much Rum" didn't do his job well coz he was busy sucking up to Walker Bush like most of his henchmen do.
2007-02-10 06:07:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by xander 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
definite, surely there's a large large difference in value between peace and conflict. i do not have time to call all of them, yet listed right here are some to get you began. First, i am going to commence with our troops. No, we does not be paying them to sit down down round or to coach. A majority of the troops scuffling with this conflict are reservists. they are the weekend warriors and they often artwork complete-time civilian jobs. the authorities would not pay them except they are observed as to accountability. 2d, existence coverage. This one likely balances out, yet make sure that the authorities factors our troops with low value existence coverage which will pay $400,000. With 2,000 troops useless, that is a complete of $800,000,000! Now on to our kit. definite, our defense force does fly airplane and shoot guns for practise. yet, our defense force would not often use this a lot kit nor as regularly as they do throughout conflict. all of it factors up. in basic terms to pressure and complicated slightly extra on countless the criteria that I made, likely the biggest cost of this conflict is manpower. an significant area of our troops over there are reservists or guardsmen and they don't receives a fee regardless even if or not they are at conflict. An activation is the purely time they get obtain an same repayment as their energetic accountability opposite numbers. in the different case, they purely receives a fee some hundred funds a month (or a lot less, reckoning on their pay grade). a useless ringer for max organizations, not uncomplicated artwork is continuously going to be the costlliest cost. On a aspect topic, the existence coverage presented to the defense force is termed service member's crew existence coverage, or SGLI for short. It expenditures the service member about $fifty six/month for $400,000 of coverage. I in basic terms concept it should be interesting to communicate about that this coverage is accessible to defense force individuals by technique of the authorities because maximum different coverage carriers have clauses of their contracts which in certain exclude conflict and conflict suitable deaths from being paid out. and also you're acceptable, $800 million is only a drop interior the bucket for our u . s .. although that's nevertheless $800 million.
2016-11-26 21:31:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by chamberland 4
·
0⤊
0⤋