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

You can't claim to be pro-life is you support the endless war with no victory plan.

2007-04-20 04:52:30 · 24 answers · asked by Villain 6 in Politics & Government Politics

Daily bombings that have killed and mamed thousands of Iraqis, dead American soldiers.

2007-04-20 04:56:42 · update #1

I never said I was pro-abortion. I asked a question.

2007-04-20 04:59:26 · update #2

24 answers

Pro-choicers have the choice of not fighting, unlike the choice the fetus has.

2007-04-20 04:56:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9 5

They don't claim to be anti-war, just anti-abortion. They make a descision for the fetus that it is incapable of making on its own. The soldiers have made a choice to go to war and serve their country. And in terms of world history, very few people have died. More died in the influenza pandemic in the 20s that killed about 20,000,000 in a year. World War One produced around 19 million deaths globally and 116,708 in the U.S. alone. Although the war on terror has produced several thousand casualties the numbers are dwarfed by previous conflicts.

2007-04-20 05:17:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

They abhor being wrong. They will never admit going to war was wrong to start with. According to Republicans we won the war, we are now fighting a civil war. We all know how long civil wars can last. It is at this point a money leech to the United States.
They will also tell you their is no comparison of the issues but, a life is a life is a life. Regardless of the age. They will tell you the soldiers have a choice, just let one try to leave or refuse to fight. He will be arrested, tried, and court-martialed, they have no choice if they change their mind. We all know that the majority of the soldiers in the military never thought they would see active combat duty, they enrolled for education and jobs.
.

2007-04-20 05:06:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Which war are you talking about ? Certainly not the fracus in Iraq. The vast percentage of those being killed has nothing to do with war. If Shiites want to wipe out Sunnis, and Sunnis want to kill off all the Shiites, just what can American Republicans do about it ? By being there, we're holding back the wholesale slaughter that will erupt the day we leave.
Preventing an all-out war between the denominations in the entire Muslim part of the world is a victory.

2007-04-20 05:04:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

I have a question for Gottlos. How many of the Iraqi civilians we have killed in our unprovoked invasion were terrorists?

60,000 dead confirmed so far, with reputable sources putting the actual number at 600,000. None of these ever engaged in any act of terrorism. They were just convenient targets. These figures do not include the roughly 50,000 iraqi soldiers we slaughtered during the invasion, or any of the insurrgents we killed.

It does, however, include the little 15 year old girl raped and killed by US soldiers, and her family who were burned to death to cover up the crime.

It does NOT include the prisoners we executed at Abu Ghraib--more than 30--though only 7 were investigated, and charges brought in only a few.

I think it is pretty clear that neocons (only some republicans) value the contents of a woman's uterus almost more than money itself, but could not give a damn about any child after it has been born. They deny access to abortion, and with the same hand deny health, medical, and welfare benefits to the children born to the single mothers whom they denied reproductive choice.

They support capital punishment for the children of single mothers who were unable to give their children decent care, maternity leave, or educational opportunities, and who ended up preying on society as an almost inevitable result.

It sounds like their goals are inconsistent, but they actually are not. The reason they oppose abortion is because it increases human misery, pain, and suffering. These are all causes they cherish, just as they cherish waging endless war. It is why they want drug abuse treated as a criminal problem rather than a medical one, so that those suffering from addiction may further suffer withdrawal and anal abuse in our wondrous prison system.

In 2003 Saddam Hussein executed Abu Nidal, the only known international terrorist inside Iraq at that time. Today, however, Al Queda enjoys a strong and growing presence there, thanks to our incompetence.

God bless Amerika!

2007-04-20 05:38:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

I guess the U.S. should simply ask North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and any other nation that exterminates their opposition to sit down and talk about it. Then when they continue, we "show them" by getting up and leaving the talk. Then we boycott them for years and years (like we did Cuba--who did not cease their atrocities).
Is it any better if the host country kills unabated, than to intervene.
As to "Victory Plan"---is Sadam still killing today? Nope he lost that battle. Our Victory Plan today is to lessen the chance of a Sadam wannabe from rising to power. You need to look into the definition of war-----the person who is strongest makes the rules. Japan saw in WW II the definition of pulling out all stops. The US uses the least amount of resistance in this one. And I am truly sorry the innocent are killed. We have no smart bullets and unfortunately this is the cost of war

2007-04-20 05:14:44 · answer #6 · answered by hkenstuart 1 · 1 1

i will basically talk for myself yet in answer to you questions: i'm professional-existence because of the fact i've got self belief in conserving the main susceptible existence on earth---the unborn, who've actual no way of conserving themselves and count on us to supply them the 1st actual top any man or woman could have--- the surprising to exist. i've got self belief in the dying penalty because of the fact i've got self belief that evil does exist. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is dying--- Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a guy so as that he dies shall truthfully be placed to dying"--- (New King James version) and there are others. we could constantly undergo in ideas we live in mans imperfect international and attempting to do the excellent we are able to. that's terrible that an harmless individual be placed to dying wrongly, yet we are human and do make human errors. have self belief it or not, there are mandatory wars----not sturdy ones, yet mandatory. Even in the Bible there have been wars. Examples-- Proverbs 20:18 each and every purpose is widespread by potential of advice; by potential of smart council salary war. The conflict of Jericho---others. What approximately Exodus the place the 1st born sons have been struck down, which incorporate the Kings son. weren't they innocents? It grew to become into then that the slaves have been launched from bondage. some died so as that thousands and thousands could desire to flow in peace. properly, besides, No. i don't sense like a hypocrite in any respect.

2016-10-13 01:05:07 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I hate to answer questions with questions but since you like to use this absurd comparison, it is best to show the absurdity of it by asking: Why do you think it is a virtue to be for killing babies in the womb but a vice to try to stop the terrorists and bring the blessings of freedom to the people of the Middle East?

You must know by now that terrorists are killing civilians and that we are trying to stop them. You must also know that killing viable babies in the womb is murder and that no one has the right to choose murder.


.

2007-04-20 05:13:50 · answer #8 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 2 2

Simple. An aborted baby had no chance or choice at life, a soldier had the choice of going into the military and taking a chance of being killed. And liberal clowns like you won't let our military conduct operations the way they need to be, without rules.

2007-04-20 04:57:57 · answer #9 · answered by Armed Civilian 4 · 8 5

This is not an endless war. Also, we are fighting Islam Fascism. I will not surrender to those fanactics.

2007-04-20 05:07:27 · answer #10 · answered by c1523456 6 · 2 2

becuase they can "see" and "listen"

we know what the aims of the terrorist groups are... to have an islam world and to kill all the infidels.....

should we just withdrawl and wait for them to attack us again? If we cannot beat the extremists know one can.... and they will slowly but surely take over more and more countries... if someone doesn´t obey them or do what they want, they send in suicide attackers..... they´ve already got spain to do what they want..... and france is fading fast.

their aim is to kill us, we can´t say ok, we don´t want to fight any more... they started this...... do you remember what day it was when all this started? what were you doing?

and its not gonna stop when bush leaves office, its not gonna stop until one of us wins.....

2007-04-20 05:05:28 · answer #11 · answered by James R 3 · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers