Sure they do. Most of them are willing to accept war, when it's truly justified. We've now been through four years of bloody war, with no end in sight for a country that absolutely, positively will collapse into a disaster as soon as we leave. We can't prevent it by staying there forever. It's going to happen. We set up a puppet government that cannot survive without continuous, expensive life support, forever.
That means that what we are doing over there is pointless. It's pointless to waste lives and money over an unobtainable objective.
Go ahead and wave your little flag, for all it matters. Scream your party's message in the streets, if you like. It won't change the fact that thousands of people have died over something that is tragically pointless, and that we continue to throw lives down a well, for the same non-reason.
Neither you, I, Al Gore or George Bush know what the prevailing opinion will be in ten years about this war or climate change, or anything else. We have to do the best we can do with the information available today, and that information says a) your war is stupid; and b) mankind is increasing the average temperature of the Earth.
The Democrats' actions only seem illogical to you because you think everybody else sees the world in a one-dimensional format, like you do. Somebody has told you that we have to go to war every time somebody says, "To protect freedom, we must fight.", and you feel unpatriotic if you don't jump up and unquestioningly support war. Some people have a more sophisticated view of reality. One that takes into account as many reality-based observations as possible. Some people do research, and try to make decisions based on the facts, instead of just jumping into line when somebody labelled "the president" says to jump.
I know I'm not changing your mind about anything. That's fine. I just want to counter your IA "soapbox" violation with one of my own. Next time ask a real question.
2007-05-04 11:40:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by DiesixDie 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well lets see there was Franklin Roosevelt World War II,
Harry Truman Korean War, Lyndon Johnson Vietnam, Bill Clinton Bosnia. Both parties are quite good at starting wars and sticking our noses where they don't belong.
2007-05-06 22:58:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by mick 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are soldiers over there who say that we're not fighting for anyone's freedom but only antagonizing the ethnic groups within Iraq and further destroying their country and creating more instability in the Middle East. In the US we already have freedom, over there Iraqis are struggling to stay alive. So get off your condescending high horse if you think America is personally under attack. You have no idea what terrorism is...
2007-05-04 19:15:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by boxjellÿ 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
This war is about Iraqi freedom , NOT OURS. I can understand that Republicans up in Washington think that it is. It is just when one of us civilians really falls for their line of stupidity that we have to worry then.
WWII was about our freedom and that is why we won.
The Korean War was not about our freedom and that is why we didn't win.
The Vietnam War was not about our freedom and that is why we did not win.
I can see the thing that we started in Afghanistan because Taliban/al quiadaI(not perfect spelling) were responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not. The country of Iraq at that time was not even up to par to even coming close to pulling off a 9/11. Hussein was too busy knocking off his own people to even care less about people in America.
2007-05-04 19:01:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Michael M 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Do Republicans realize where the real war is and needs to be? Do they realize that the civil war in Iraq is NOT the best way to spend our resources, when we should actually be out fighting terrorists?
Sadly, they don't.
And if you don't believe in global climate change, then you're a moron. Do you not believe in evolution also?
2007-05-06 15:38:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by I am that damn good. 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course they know, that's why most of them are frustrated that we didn't stick with the real War on Terror in Afghanistan and instead put it in the backseat to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and proved not to be an imminent threat after all, big surprise. Now thanks to Bush, we've got to deal with Al Queda in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Good job Dubya!
2007-05-04 18:33:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
How can you say that it's ever OK to kill thousands of people for an ideal? How can any country charge in anywhere and destroy their homes, family's and culture? You say democrats are foolish (which I'm not saying is wrong, there are foolish people in every group) but the truly foolish thing is accepting the death of thousands of your fellow humans as necessary.
2007-05-04 18:36:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by scottp5657 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
"Weather" our freedom is at stake? Is that a global warming joke, or are you the joke?
Yeah, it's been four years now. Still waiting to prove the war was necessary. Can't wait. Four looooong years. Still waiting.
2007-05-04 18:37:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think some of them have an inkling but their hatred of Bush is all consuming. Rather than do what is best for the future of our country, they are more worried about keeping power and trying achieve their socialist agenda.
2007-05-04 18:38:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by booman17 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
haha, well if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck it might be a spastic monkey with bad feet, but you still look like a fool, if you still believe all this mess seriously, for real, your still french kissing the g.o.p. well if you're not a billionnaire, and you support the g.o.p you are a duck,
2007-05-04 18:34:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by rockabillly motha****** 5
·
3⤊
1⤋