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

and what do you think of pres. Bush not knowing any one over there and still saying "i support our troops", and the fact that he SAID he KNEW that more people were going to die but he's still going to send 21000 more troops over there. personally i think its crap that ENG. can send their princes over to iraq (I know its not going to be in any danger zone but still i give them props for even going) and Bush would never send his military elg. daughters over there.

2007-03-12 20:04:35 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

17 answers

I think it's better then sitting in Texas waiting to deploy. Waiting to deploy sucks. I actually reenlisted over here.

Clinton's military age daughter still has plenty of time to go to Bosnia, but I doubt that will happen.

England tried to keep Prince Harry out of Iraq, but he has the right attitude about it. He feels that there is no reason for him to have endured his training and then not use it. Every serviceman should feel the same.

2007-03-12 20:28:48 · answer #1 · answered by DOOM 7 · 2 0

What constitutes a victory? That really hasn't been defined. The leadership in this war has been shallow, at best. In order to win a war, there has to be some definite goals to overcome. There is one we cannot overcome, and that is a sectarian civil war. It isn't our place to end a cultural and religious civil war where the majority of the people don't want us there, we have no business there, and we will eventually be forced to leave. Saddam is dead. Iraq has a government. It is their problem to build their own military (the one we disbanded) and police force. It is also their responsibility to decide when to end their religious infighting. It's time to come home. As for Prince Harry, he's going to a war zone, and you can bet that the insurgency will attempt to target him as a highly publicized target. I don't care about Bush's daughters in a war zone. They would just be a distraction. It's time to bring them all home. We've done our part.

2007-03-12 20:17:29 · answer #2 · answered by gone 6 · 1 0

IF YOU THINK ITS BAD NOW , YOU AINT SEEN NUTHIN YET. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of Industrial Civilization as we now know it. The world is quickly running out of OIL. USA is grabbing all it can get. India , Russia and China are now forming an alliance to help them get theirs. USA cant let them have it or they will starve. India and China are desperate for oil. Iraq is gonna turn into a massive resource war and this is a matter of life or death for USA. If the media were to tell the people in USA the truth about this , it would cause a massive panic. Therefore it is called "The Greatest Story Never Told". We got maybe 10 years left , no more . Have fun.

2007-03-12 20:35:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'm freekin' he didnt re inact the draft.
As a young child growing up in the 60's we'd watch SSN's roll across the news telling people whom had to join the army and go to V. Nam.. I still remember to this day, I was in 1st or second grade and I asked my father...Daddy why is there war?
Now my father is a hardcore Republican. He'll back up ANY republican NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO!.
My father calmlly told me a 8 year old.....War creats jobs. We build bombs and bullets to keep people working we need to use the bombs and bullets.
THEREFORE: all my life when a Republican is in the house I exspect WAR, Higher Gas prices, High employement until the end of there term then..Higher gas prices, Increased unemployement, and a out of control budget. They'll spend every dime and cause the ecconomy to come to the brink of collapes Then laugh at the democrates that have to clean up the mess.

2007-03-12 20:16:57 · answer #4 · answered by Grand Eminence 1 3 · 0 0

against the Iraq war yet if you consider that all of us started it we could desire to end it. of direction there is the prospect that with Saddam in potential we'd have finally had to bypass to war in some unspecified time interior the destiny. Who knows? I merely think of the money could have been greater effective spent interior the u . s . a . on kinfolk potential progression. concepts you, i'm no longer some fool who's blindly anti-war or anti-militia. until all people interior the international ceases to be aggressive there'll continually be a choose for a militia. as long as international places compete for land and components there will be war. people who marketing campaign to end all wars or do away with the militia stay in a dreamworld.

2016-10-02 01:06:14 · answer #5 · answered by wisniowski 4 · 0 0

What’s really “crap” is that you want to send a couple of girls to fight your country’s battles. Just be thankful there’s no draft (thank you, Republicans). Oh, and a P.S. for the historical amnesiac answerer above: this struggle with Iraq (which began in 1991, paused under a cease-fire, and resumed in 2003) is the only war in the 20th century begun under a Republican administration (the last before Iraq was the Spanish-American War, remember that one? No? Probably because it was in 1898). And U.S. unemployment is at an historic low.

2007-03-12 20:43:04 · answer #6 · answered by Thucydides 5 · 1 0

You’d better get used to this war, of which Iraq is just one small theater, because we in the West are going to be in it for most of your life. President Bush will be retired and clearing brush in Texas in two years; what are you going to cry about then? The government’s mistakes thus far have been minuscule compared to those we made in the Second World War, for example, but the Americans of yesteryear focused on victory not defeatism. The real and immediate threat to our way of life today is Islamic fascism and the terrorism it breeds (which I’ve personally seen kill people); that’s the inconvenient truth that so many cannot look passed their politics to accept. Get behind this president, get behind the next one, too (Democrat or Republican), because if we loose this war, our children will damn our memory as the cowards who failed them.

2007-03-12 20:31:53 · answer #7 · answered by Cassandria 4 · 1 0

The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, “Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure it out from there.” The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter. Making the war in Iraq an “illegal” war.

2007-03-12 21:08:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

It should have been avoided one. If a single man take some decision to attack people even if it is correct what our Government says. You should not take law in to your hand.The same way the U.S. Should not act as police for the world. Now the judge who delivered the death sentence for the Satham is seeking asylum in Britain.He has to fear for his entire life.

2007-03-12 20:30:48 · answer #9 · answered by A.Ganapathy India 7 · 0 0

US should have stepped off the Iraqi soil, the moment it became clear that there weren't any biological weapons in there. But, the fight really wasn't against terrorism, was it? Why are all the bad countries situated in Mid-Eastern countries only? Coz i think Prez Bush misread 'Oil' as 'bad' in his first grade school books.

2007-03-12 21:10:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers