2007-04-30 01:21:24 · 19 answers · asked by Red Herring 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I made a typo - I meant "conservatives"
2007-04-30 01:22:28 · update #1
It's not vietnam. Maybe if the bleeding hearts would let the soldiers fight instead of having to get shot at first we would have won years ago.
2007-04-30 01:24:57 · answer #1 · answered by NONAME 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋
A few thousand, died in car accidents in this past month. A few hundred thousand babies died in the past month due to varied reasons, abortion, murder etc...Quite a few deaths due to brain cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer etc...And all this at home. Why is that 100 seems like a lot? A lot of those we're accidents and human failure, not due to the war, but due to mechanics failure, overturned jeeps, crashed helicopters. Far more men died in past wars, than have died in this war. In all honesty, a war with Iran or North Korea will be a far more severe and deadlier war, on a relative scale Iraq is very low for a death toll. However, Death of a US soldier is something a Conservative does not want, but the death of thousands, perhaps of hundreds of thousands of civilians outwieghs the soldier. This is why the Conservative see's the war as a positive. It keeps the terrorist out of our land. We will come home in the next election, all liberal efforts within the next two years will be shot down. But in 08 when Obama or the former first lady come in, we will come home. That is when Conservatives will admit we lost, when we retreat. Al-Queda came to Iraq as we were there, they were looking for us, what's to stop them from following us like they followed us there? How will the liberal feel, when AL-Quada attacks our soil again. In 3 Years, we might ask the same question as you have. A future Q might be: "4000 US civilians were killed this month at home. How many have to die before liberal's agree we need to attack?" It's a question that's been used before. During World War II, FDR was asked the same question, as some were saying Pearl Harbor was a cover up. Sound familiar?
2007-04-30 01:34:28 · answer #2 · answered by Scotty 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We cant possibly lose unless we come home....how can we be beat....we could put 1,000,000 more troops over there if we had too.........we had much more than that in japan and germany during ww2 and the american population was only a fraction of what it is now and the money was only 5 percent of what we have now...the only way we lose is if the terrorists democrat allies keep crammin the we're beat bogus bull down the more dim witted americans throats until bush caves in and lets the terrorist kill the rest of the iraqis by coming home
2007-04-30 01:34:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only way the conservatives would admit to the war in Iraq being lost is if no one came home when we pulled our troops out.
2007-04-30 01:26:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
It is quite obvious that the conservatives want to keep this war going as long as possible, I seem to remember someone saying that bush wants to keep the war going and leave it to the next president to clean up the mess he got us into. Also expect right before the next election that some Al Queda attack has been foiled to scare the sheep into voting for the Repugs again.
Right now, we are trying to be the referees to a civil war. And war isn't Civil. We have both sides gunning for us.
2007-04-30 01:35:49 · answer #5 · answered by Norsehawk 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
This question looks like it was posted by Representative John Murtha. His is a cowardly approach. If you are following in his footsteps, you may also be too liberal and cowardly. The war has been won for a long time. Crazy muslim extremists exist and they have to be defeated, no matter what it takes. I am a conservative. If we have to fight the crazy muslims for 10 or 20 more years, so be it. Look at Isreal. They have been fighting crazy muslims for sixty years. Thousands in that country have died. The Israelis have not given up. I will not give up.
2007-04-30 01:31:52 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
1,500 AMericans were murdered this month. How many have to die before the socialists agree the experiment in restricting AMericans rights has failed?
2007-04-30 02:08:23 · answer #7 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps the only answer for Iraq is for the US to step aside an let them have their civil war. Once all the pent up anger has been released, the survivors will be able to settle down and learn to live together. Ultimately, it is their country, they have to make their country work, we can't do it for them.
2007-04-30 01:38:37 · answer #8 · answered by Paul K 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Costly yes but they have not had the nerve to perform another 9-11. Which will happen with the liberal idiots that "want to play nice". These countries have been fighting for centuries. Noone can expect the US & allies to fix everything in a couple of years.
2007-04-30 01:27:25 · answer #9 · answered by Banderagal 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
All life is precious, but from a war-fighting perspective, the numbers lost in this war are amazingly SMALL! What would you have done in WWII when we lost over 400,000 Americans? Did we lose that war too and no one told us?
2007-04-30 01:33:10 · answer #10 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The war will be lost when we with draw before we have finished the job we started. Wake up and smell the coffee
2007-04-30 01:29:50 · answer #11 · answered by Boston Mark 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋