Not to mention the civilian deaths and casualties
2007-03-27 08:49:29 · 28 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
At least we believe in what we are fighting for as Soldiers. Hell, most Americans that oppose the conflict have never served.
You know what really annoys me? The fact that Clinton had this supposed "Peace" and there was a loss of 7500+ Military members under him...so far thats 200+ more than the Bush administration during a time of war.
What also chaps my *** is the fact that we deployed to more than 20 countries world-wide under Clinton and deployed more troops from 1995 to 1999 than from 1941 to 1994. On top of that he reduced our military power by more than One Million Military members.
Yet here you are, crying over a cause that is actually worth fighting....Name one damn deployment we went on under Clinton that was worth the Soldiers lost...I challenge you with that.
2007-03-27 09:00:56 · answer #1 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hey, ostrich, you need to get your head out of the sand and your @$$ out of the air and look at the REAL world. This BS about GW's ego causing the deaths and casualties of our soldiers and some civilians is not an accurate assessment of what is in the real world but only another insult dreamed up when you were "out of it".
2007-03-27 09:41:09 · answer #2 · answered by just the facts 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it is your ego we are talking about. Governments job is not to provide for you it is to protect you. With that power comes great responsibility. The continuation of a country depends more on than just the moment. Our fore fathers could have saved many live if they had not had the revolution. The union would have save more lives than can be easily comprehended if we had allowed the south to secede. Of course your very freedom came from that blood shed. Was it worth it? How so do you then think the freedom of others is of any less value. You are a hypocrite and you refuse to even accept evidence that you are wrong. Instead you try to say well if Clinton did it you would not feel that way. I tell you that is a childish dodge and only shows your ignorance.
2007-03-27 09:03:15 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No sir, it's not worth it, and the war was a farce, and personal vendetta of Mr. Bush, not to mention his interests as an OIL man. Our funds should have been used to capture and prosecute Osama BinLaden, and Cheney is the one goading Bush to continue on this destructive journey that endangers the lives of the American People, and it will not look like this country is a PUNK for leaving Iraq, thats prudent and wise thinking to withdraw our troops who are sitting ducks for the insurgency, not knowing who is their enemy or not, and it makes a man not want to join the U.S. Military because of the prosecution of our soldiers who suffer from PTSD, but will kill an Iraqui out of fear for their own life, while they can behead Americans, and not suffer any consequence, sanction, or prosecution. They have no rules of engagement, so why should our troops be limited and prosecuted for it??
2007-03-27 09:01:13 · answer #4 · answered by Charles B 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Was FDR's ego worth the 290,000 American deaths during WW2? Your question is dumb. I don't believe for a second that any president, past or present, sent our military into war for the sake of his ego. People who join the military know what they are getting into. They know they may have to leave their families for extended periods of time, they know they may die. Plus, more of the bad guys (terrorists) have died or been killed than our guys, so doesn't that mean we're winning?
2007-03-27 09:33:37 · answer #5 · answered by Princess of the Realm 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. During the 2004 election we had to choose the lesser of both evils. Bush pulled us through 9/11 well, but now when he refuses to admit he's wrong, people lose their lives.
2007-03-27 08:59:37 · answer #6 · answered by euphoniumgirl71 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Do you really think he makes all of the decisions? Do you know why even within recent history this is happening....... things america did even 30 years ago in the region? Not to mention thousands of years of history? What other things are happening in places that you don't see on TV?
Cry and slam Bush because it is an in kind of thing. But feel free to ask silly questions knowing that there are educated people who are making sure you can do so. The first people to cry if something happens are those when something happens.
It's kind of like cops. Hate cops and the man sort of thing. But when you need them and they are at your door in two minutes you love them. It is the same.
2007-03-27 09:03:47 · answer #7 · answered by jackson 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No...
... and Mike... come on man... God has not told Bush to kill innocent civilians. That statement is truly blind. I'm a Christian... and anti-Bush... don't let people tell you how to vote by saying it's the "Christian" thing to do... because that my friend is called not using your brain. God calls us to use our common sense... oh and another thing... God is Love.... this war has none of that.
2007-03-31 08:52:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably not. So I guess it is a good thing that his ego did not start the conflict in which we are currently engaged. There are so many more complexities to life. Simple solutions like "it's his ego" don't quite cut it in an open, honest debate.
2007-03-27 08:54:04 · answer #9 · answered by Tom Jr 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Weapon: A device or system that is designed to permit humans to overcome natural physical and psychological limitations in order to enable the killing and domination of other creatures, particularly their fellow human beings.
We told our soldiers they would have the best weapons and would be fighting people who had little or no weapons that could harm them .
After all we are the greatest nation on earth .
2007-03-27 08:58:20 · answer #10 · answered by trouble maker 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋