=]
2007-08-13 14:39:44 · 17 answers · asked by CassTastic. 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The question is, what are they fighting for?
So far this war has cost our country close to half a trillion dollars. There are still terror attacks around the world, gas is three times what it cost before Bush came to office. Thousands of our troops have been killed, and thousands more maimed or injured.
It is no longer clear what our objective is. When Bush lied and took us to war we were told that Saddam was an imminent threat with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam is now dead, there are no weapons of mass destruction, and we are simply policing a civil war that we have created.
The money we spent could have paid for 29 million Americans to attend college. Or provided health care for every child in America for several years.
There is no end to what this money could have been spent on. But instead it has been poured into Iraq, something that will hurt our economy for years to come. The cost in dollars and human lives, simply cannot be justified.
2007-08-13 14:47:30 · answer #1 · answered by ZCT 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
possibly because of the fact Bush admitted there have been no WMD in Iraq. Then Bush went on television and made jokes approximately they could be obtainable someplace. this transformation into throughout the time of a White residing house dinner and over 4 thousand troops died and Bush is making jokes. The CIA cautioned Bush 3 days earlier he attacked Iraq they could not stumble on any WMD. possibly Wikileaks isn't so right cautioned on the preparation.
2016-10-15 06:07:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean keep em fighting? You are implying that we are actually fighting here. The truth is that we are treading water here, not moving forward, and not even trying. We need to realize we are at war, and act accordingly. Politicians should not be running things, the ground troops should be doing so. By troops I don't mean Betray-Us Petraeus, I mean the actual guys on the streets, not the Generals safe in the Green Zones. The surge threw more soldiers into the fight, but the ones that were here have their hands tied, and wait for the enemy to find them on their terms, they are not being hunted down, and taken from their safe havens. We need to stop worrying about our image so much, and get the job done.
2007-08-13 14:49:47 · answer #3 · answered by vammeejdeploy 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
didnt the owner of fox network buy the new york times?!!!
murdock or sumtin like that!!!
lets see, we send more troops then the enemy gets more amunition and weapons from us and the iraqis, and iran, and saudi arabia, and russiaian leftovers and italian mobsters and whoever a else wants to make a buck,!!!
so i guess with this administrations thinkin we should send more troops to equal out the amount of extra weapons that everyone has given them to fight our troops?!!!
is this rummys plan?!!!
2007-08-13 14:59:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both of course! We keep fighting until the situation in Iraq is stabilized then we bring them home.
2007-08-13 15:10:39 · answer #5 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Am wondering to myself if the purpose was to overthrow Saddam and we did that, isn't the job completed. You can't tell me that the war on terror was just compounded to Iraq and Afghanistan.
2007-08-13 14:46:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Keep them there until they are no longer needed.
To all the people referencing US casualties in Iraq...
We lose more US military personnel weekly due to automobile accidents back home than we do in Iraq. So from a statistical standpoint you have a higher chance of living while deployed in Iraq. So if your objective is to save the lives of US military personnel you should be attempting to send more to Iraq, not bring more home.
Look it up, I am not kidding.
2007-08-13 14:53:09 · answer #7 · answered by h h 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
maybe a third option?
like, let them fight. it's not unrealistic to believe that 25 thousand marines would be able to totally control 25 million arabs. especially with a bit of precisely placed air support.
2007-08-14 04:05:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously the surge is working. Even the liberal New York Times is saying it is. So we should stay and finish the job. We owe it to the brave men and women fighting....
2007-08-13 14:45:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
pull out.
The war we are in now is a distarction for the real war against teror
Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. It had not killed one american citizen. Now that wer there, it is not doing any significant damage to terrorism, and al qaida is now better off now than they were before. We need to concentrate on the real war against teror, in afghanistan Because this war is spreading terrorism, not weakeneing it.
This war is not accomplishing anything towards making us safer.
Osama is free, that is not making us safer. Now everyday were there, it is strengthening terorists, now they are back as strong as ever.
We need to stop the spread, and bring al qaida to its knees
2007-08-13 14:58:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋