why should I support the troops in Iraq again? Remind me how my freedoms were being jeopardized by the Iraqis?

Question

Because the common mantra is that they are over there fighting for my freedom, yet I didnt realise Iraqi's were jeopordizing my freedom. Im so naive. Remind me again how I was in grave danger until George W Bush saved me by sending troops into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and was considerably less of a threat to the US than say North Korea, Iran or Syria.

Aiminghigh: So the lives of the North Koreans arent worth as much then in your eyes? We shouldnt have been there in the first place. Dont plead the whole 'we are doing it for the Iraqi people c* *p'. Where are you pleading to free the North Koreans???

Frederick - congratulations youve just been reported.

Answer 1

A threat to freedom anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere. Our troops didn't choose to go to Iraq. They chose to support their country and help protect the freedom's that you and I enjoy daily. The Iraqi people were being slaughtered in the streets, raped in public and treated like dirt. I don't agree that we should still be there, but we went in with the intention of bringing freedom to people who needed (and want) to be free.

We can't just simply pull our troops out, even though they want to come home. If we pulled out now, immediately, it would all cave in around the Iraqi people again.

The concept behind the United Nations is for global unity. We need to think globally, because things that are destroying our world are global concerns. When dictators and murderers are reigning over countries, and establishing a nuclear program with the intention of going to war, then it should be a global response. The US is the only country that stands by it's affirmations, and we as citizens should support the people making the biggest sacrifices.

You don't have to agree with the President to support the troops.

Answer 2

Support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere else that they stand in the world. Support the troops, because they stand gaurd, and say nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch. Support the troops, because they are your brother, your sister, your mother or your father, a friend, a neighbor. Support the troops, because the money they make is not enough for the job they do. Support the troops because if you don't who will? Support the troops because they sacrifice so much for you to be able to sit at your computer and ask why should i support the troops. Support the troops, because all they need is a prayer/thought to make it through the day. Support the troops because they wonder what Americans think about them. Support the troops because of all of the troops who have paid the ulitmate sacrifice and those troops who have been wounded. Support the troops because that man behind the checkout is a veteran, a prisoner of war who was tourtured for years. Support the troops because of the children who may never meet mommy or daddy. Support the troops because of the spouce who will never seen their husband/wife ever again. Support the troops because they are away from their families and friends, they miss birthdays, aniversaries, graduations, holidays, children being born, loved ones passing, all the good times so that they can help other people in this world. Support the troops because they swore to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemy's foriegn and domestic. If you don't support the war/the president/the country, at the very least support the troops! God Bless America!

Answer 3

We went to Iraq not thinking it would be such a bloody mess that it has become today. The intention was to get in and get a strong hold on the middle-east so that just in case anything else pops off we would have a base of operation. If you would look at a map see where Iraq and Afghanistan are located you would understand that we have Iran surrounded and along with Israel with have Syria surrounded. in other words divide and conquer. You need to look at the bigger picture! The reason you should support your troops is because their the reason you can sleep at night and ask this stupid question, they give thier lives so you can have one, you need to understand that you dont have to support the war inorder to support the troops.

Answer 4

Even if you don't support the war, supporting the people in the armed forces is a noble thing to do as a citizen. The people who make up the armed forces, are normal citizens like you or me who have taken an extremely selfless vow to support the government, put themselves in harm's way, and fight the conflicts that our leaders deem important. The people who make up the frontline soldiers particularly deserve our support as a nation. They have volunteered to answer the call of duty, even in an unpopular war. These people are our neighbors, our sons, daughters, friends, high school classmates, etc.. Support them as citizens, if not as American Armed Forces.

Not all of the troops serving in Iraq believe the Iraqi's are a great threat to U.S. citizens either. But they believe in helping other people, and even though the nightly news doesn't report it, we are doing a lot of good over there for the common man.

Answer 5

You should support the troops because they are doing their job. They swore an oath to defend their country. They didn't "choose" to start the war in Iraq. King George II did. Complain all you want about him. But leave the troops out of the debate.

Answer 6

They weren't. The reason we invaded Iraq instead of Iran was because if we invaded Iran the U.S. casualty list would be in the tens of thousands. By invading Iraq we force Iran to put all there monies into becoming a nuclear power.

It costs them $20 to produce the same barrel of oil that the Saudis, Kuaties, and the UAE produce for only $2 a barrel.

This forces the extremist government of Iran to seek nuclear power at all costs. It is there only avenue to the throne of the Middle East and therefore OPEC.

The other OPEC nations fear this therefore the price of a gallon of gas is not $8.

Whether it was lies or faulty intel invading Iraq was the next best logical target to eventually defeating the terrorist supporting Axis of Evil.

Answer 7

Iraq vacuum = terrorist breading grounds what weren't 23 million Iraqi citizens worth removing the Butcher of Baghdad for?

Answer 8

You should support the troops. They did not choose to go to war. The US government did.

Answer 9

I can't..To me we are in the midst of a civil war,which Bush boy caused..But our troops are only doing their jobs..I don't think they want to really be there either,pulling a paycheck to sit around and do drills all day would be more awesome..I too missed how we got from point A to M..was crazy..but were here now ..

Answer 10

I agree with you; you are naive. Don't take it personally, though. Just let me educate you on my opinion.

First, I must state that I supported the invasion of Iraq for the reason we went in there (at least the ostensible reason), which was to oust Hussein for defiance of cease-fire agreements and numerous U.N. resolutions. (SIDENOTE: I believe the other reason, which will never be admitted by anyone in the administration, was to institute a pro-Western, democratic government meant to influence and/or provoke the Iranian youth to revolt against the anti-Western/theocratic Caliphate that exists in Iran. On a lesser note, I support that too, if only because it beats an all out war against them for supporting terrorism - a war which would be neither profitable, agreeable, or possibly even successful). Second, I must state that I support the current involvement in Iraq, which is to provide stability and peace-enforcement services for the fledgling government that will serve as our much-needed Arab ally in the mid-East and the GWOT (Global War on Terror), which, ultimately, is by far the most important struggle of our generation - no matter how many people try to gloss over or ignore it.

With those statements made, I now criticize the handling of the war and the condition of the U.S. Armed Forces leading up to this new face of warfare that we are forced to endure. I place initial blame on the Carter administration for taking such a weak stance in the beginning of our struggle with the 4 Nov 1979 seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, Iran, and the subsequent hostage crisis that lasted 444 days. I place further blame on the Reagan administration for no response to the 23 Oct 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut - the first significant extremist act against the United States that caused significant loss of life (not resulting from the direct involvement of a sovereign nation). I place primary blame on the Clinton administration's lack of foresight and attention to detail with regard to the rise of religious militancy across the globe and the willingness of those that support their murderous ideology to inflict pain and suffering upon innocents, particularly Americans, as evidenced by the handful of terrorist attacks upon American interests (i.e. 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 1998 Embassy bombing in Tanzania, 1998 Embassy bombing in Kenya, and the attack on the USS Cole in Oct 2000).

With all of this going on, why on Earth would that administration demand and institute a decade-long policy of systematically demantling U.S. military power?? As a U.S. Army Aviation officer during that period, I witnessed frequent training accidents and inability of active flight personnel to maintain personal flight time minimums dictated by regulations simply because there wasn't enough funding to support a flight-hour program healthy enough to fly everybody. This was how I perceived the build-down. Sure, there was no Soviet threat, but the growing threat, very real today, was right in front of us, as were old enemies such as North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, and potential adversaries such as China, who has the capability of causing severe harm if so inclined.

Where am I going with this? When you ask a 10-division army to perform a mission designed for a 12-division army, you're looking at inherent problems on a grand scale pertaining to personnel retention, operational tempo, training and operational accidents, lifespan of equipment, and numerous smaller problems that would (and has) plague(d) the operation from the outset.

This is where my criticism of the Bush administration falls. With the announcement of the GWOT in Sep 2001, there should have been an emphasis of rebuilding the military machine the U.S. had enjoyed over the course of several decades during the Cold War. Rumsfeld's idea of continuing to thin out the Department of Defense with the notion of 'machine over man' was and is not conducive to the type of warfare we are faced with today. High tech weaponry and laser guided munitions, while very necessary for tactical reasons, are strategically flawed without the boots on the ground to flush out terrorist cells and insurgents. The bottom line is that Colin Powell was right when he suggested more troops for the invasion and subsequent occupation/support operations in Iraq. A significant number of more troops in the beginning would have allowed for a better sealed border with Syria and Iran, which would in turn left little room for foreign instigators to infiltrate and provoke an anti-Western insurgency and ultimately sectarian strife between Sunni and Shi'a who have managed to live in relative peace in Iraq for years.

The United States on a macro- and a micro- level has been trying to accomplish too much with too little. We MUST win in Iraq if we are to prevail in the GWOT. Failing to do so will provide a safe-haven for terrorists around the world, embolden those enemies that their way is the right way, increase the theocratic Iran's influence in the mid-East (and therefore globally), shake our already fragile, yet growing, economy, and further tarnish our image abroad. More troops are needed. But they were needed last year and the year before that. And based on my experience as a military leader, 10 years before that.

I support his plan, but with staunch rebuke. I still argue that more is needed. I argue that the American citizenry should open their eyes to the greater struggle and face personal sacrifice as our families did 65 years ago when involved in last century's greatest struggle. We must come together and not lament the loss of our brave warriors but honor them with supporting a path to victory. I argue that the politicians have some backbone and stop capitulating to the punditry that infects our institution of a democratic republic.

I have countless friends and former colleagues who have served in the GWOT, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, or elsewhere (including my wife). Furthermore, I have lost six friends/colleagues in the war (and three others in non-related incidents), so I am not ignorant to the pain of loss. However I will not dishonor their sacrifices and that of countless innocents lost in the nearly 24 years since American blood was first spilled in our fight with religious extremism, just as we did not (and should not) lament the loss of thousands of lives on the beaches and hedgerows of Normandy in 1944. Then, we had the resolve to fight and struggle through many thousands more deaths of friends, sons, brothers, and fathers in order to achieve the victory that was so important.

The United States is not so strong that we can delude ourselves to think that we are immune to destruction. Japan and Germany had no way to touch us the way we are vulnerable today - remember Hawaii wasn't a state yet when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Yet, we had resolve in '44, when the toll and the sacrifice was much worse. The power of the media is the tool that the enemy uses against us. And this fight is right here at home, right in our living rooms. They are stabbing us with our own knives and we let them do it. So, where is our resolve now, when the stakes are clearly much higher? Where is our will? Where is our combined strength? Where is our sense of reality? Where is our purpose? I pray that we don't have to find out when IEDs are exploding in front of our shopping malls and bus stations. That's not propaganda, folks... that's a grim reality that is just a measure of resolve away... a measure of resolve required by our enemies that are sitting in this country already waiting for their opportunity to show us the true meaning of pain and loss.

The new leadership in the Pentagon, in CENTCOM, and in Iraq have one major task ahead of them - to get the situation under control "over there". But, we as a people, have a greater task "over here" - to get our situation under control before somebody else does it for us.