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

Source: American Legion....VFW....CNN News...BBC News. ABC News....NBC News...( 70% of Americans are now "NOT" for the Iraq war)

2007-07-22 03:40:41 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

So many great answers here. Going to be hard to pick.

2007-07-22 11:07:14 · update #1

21 answers

President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003. If it was Mission Accomplished, then we should have started making our withdrawal, not continuing to have a war. Also, we were lied to about the WMDs...they didn't exist. We don't like being lied to. When our soldiers come back from a war, and tell us that the work they are doing over there is pointless, and our government is spending $10 billion a month to fund it, and our soldiers say that no matter what we do, it won't make a difference, then we get angry.

We feel that it is a losing battle. The Middle Eastern countries have been battling for thousands of years, and we are not going to break their war patterns now. The only way to succeed is to turn Iraq and several other countries into a parking lot, but that isn't an option.

We are sick of deployments that are continually being extended. Those of us with loved ones in the service are sick of the constant wear on our soldiers, and the strain it puts on us back home. We now have 15 month deployments, not just 12. And even though they get 12 months "home" They aren't really home, they are in field training for sometimes 2 months at a time, with only 4 days to come home, clean gear, and go back to the field, to prepare to go back to the war.

We have more important problems here on the homefront that the military could be helping with, but instead they are gone to fight what many of us now feel has become a personal vendetta for Pres. Bush.

2007-07-22 03:57:00 · answer #1 · answered by ALFimzadi 5 · 2 1

because as Americans, we value life. war is horrible, any war but we learn from history if we don't take a stand, then we are in danger of losing that which is most precious to us, our freedom.

Polls are always suspect and one should be wary when forming their opinions based on poll results.

who is being asked, how is the question phrased, what are their political views and other questions come into play and determine the 'results'.

we are now a global community and what affects other countries directly affect us. one should gather all the facts before making an informed decision and determine their veiws rather than parrot the points of a talking head they admire.

we have a lot at stake in the outcome of this war against terrorism by the religious extremists. one should think careful as to how best to resolve the issue.

2007-07-22 11:09:13 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 2 0

I personally have NEVER been for the war in Iraq. My opinion toward it is that Bush was just trying to finishe what Daddy Bush couldn't. We still have yet to find those weopens of mass destruction his informants were so sure that were in that poor country.

Didn't the war start because of 9/11? Weren't the people responsable for the tragidy Afganistans? Hmm. Maybe Bushy Wushys tushy was confused about his geography.

While I don't support our joke of a president, I do support the troops he put over there.

I just feel that when you hold a postition like he does, he should make sure his people over here are taken care of before going to other countries. I appreciate that he says its for freedom that they have never had, but they don't want us there... He is building up a country while letting his own fall.

2007-07-22 10:52:25 · answer #3 · answered by ashley h 3 · 2 1

I was never for the War in Iraq. Why? Because they were not a threat to us and we still hadn't found Bin Laden. Also, the hundreds of billions of dollars spent could have been put to much better use. Not to mention that there was no question whether we could beat their military, but I distinctly remember people predicting that a war with Iraq would be unconventional. There are wars that I would support under some of these conditions, but for a country that wasn't hurting anyone at the time, I think it was a mistake.

Was Sadam a horrible person? YES. Did he deserve to die? YES. Are there worse leaders than him out there? YES. Did they have to worry about terrorist when Sadam was in power? NO Do they have to worry about them now? YES Was it a mistake for us to invade? YES

2007-07-22 10:45:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

The increasing number of Americans who have been killed, and the increasing number of civilians who have been killed.

And the fact that the longer we stay, the more the violence rate increases. Add to that military and intelligence reports that say the longer we stay, the stronger foreign terrorists groups get.

And the fact that there is no end in sight and no indication that the Iraqi govt is making any progress towards living up to its obligations.

Top that off with a 12 billion per month expenditure, when people in the US could benefit from that money....

There are quite a few reasons why 200+ million people might have come to that conclusion.

2007-07-22 10:44:50 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4 3

I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I no longer support the continued war effort because I believe we have accomplished our stated goals successfully. I believe that it is time for the Iraqis to stand on their own and determine the direction of their future. While I do believe that we can continue to offer support and training to aid in their efforts, it is time for the occupation to cease.

Additionally, I will give you credit here. This is a much better question than many you ask. It doesn't denigrate and calls for people to think and express their own views. Kudos!

2007-07-22 10:48:25 · answer #6 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1 1

Personally, I don't like the way they're fighting - it's all about political correctness. And WE are the only ones fighting by the rules most of the time. Unless you're going to actually fight, not have to call 50 freaking people for permission to shoot, then why the hell bother?

2007-07-22 10:48:55 · answer #7 · answered by lyobov 3 · 3 0

This war is benefiting the big oil companies like Exxon,BP and Gulf oil .
The right could care less about the 3500 lives lost already .
This is a war that is not going to be won with military power .

2007-07-22 10:46:58 · answer #8 · answered by jeffadelic 5 · 3 1

"The young one" at loss with our creator's universal gifts of life.
At loss and blurr with what the Liberation of Freedom for the good of mankind from world war two was all about.
Took for granted that their brothers and sisters out there were occupying foreign land.
When they were out there to save our brothers and sisters in iraq with the blunders and slip-ups with human errors they created back in the past in their own backyards and could not solve the mess on their own.
The blunders and slip-ups with human errors in idol worshiping the dead Mummy in not worshiping God with the betrayal of Judas in their own backyards.
Look around at the mess how they were clubbing one another among their own kind in playing tic,tac , toe.
When those guys and gals out there expose that they too were at loss and blurr with what went wrong out there.

2007-07-22 11:43:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because the vast majority of THINKING adult and school children have been able to see bush's lies and conflictig statements.
Al-Qadai is NOT in Iraq, but the "leader" of the free world wants to tell all of us that they are, and therefore we needed to invade a country.
Al-Qadai IS known to be in Afghanistan, but the puppet president wants the oil reserves in Iraq...

2007-07-22 10:49:28 · answer #10 · answered by wi_saint 6 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers