do you suport the war?

Question

i want to know how many of you people support the war.. i support our troops but not for what we are fighting for... i usnderstand at the time of 9/11 it was the right thing to do and we got saddam and we convicted him... so why are we still over there in this mess we are losing men and women every single day... we are never gonna stop terrorism its not possible its a endless fight agaisnt it.. so what are you thoughts on the war?

support*

Answer 1

Yes, I support our troops, and my country. No I don't belive this action to invade Iraq was right. I don't belive we've helped. I don't belive we will have a successful withdrawal. I belive our presence has increased the number of terrorists, our risks, and spurned future attacks.

Eventually our troops will come home. I hope it's as soon as possible.

Answer 2

I support the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan.
I don't really support the war in Iraq.


No matter what you support, support the troops who fight for freedom every single day.

My deepest respect goes to those men and women.
Especially the ones who come home early covered in the Stars and Stripes

Answer 3

We are still over there because if we leave Iran or another country will take our place and turn Iraq against us. It is also a strategically important location with Iraq we have air routes into various nations that we wouldn't have otherwise and could need in the near future not to mention plenty of boots on the ground in one of the most "important" and turmelous areas in the world.

We should have taken care of Saddam the first time we were over there but I'm glad that he is finally dead. The only way to stop Islamic terrorism is to put them all in the ground and let God sort them out but another group would soon take their place and then we would have to use the same strategy against them untill there was noone left.

Answer 4

At the time 9/11 and the right thing to do? Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The war was a sham from the beginning. I support my country but i will not support unjust or wrong things....

Answer 5

I support both miilitary operations which we have launched since the attack on America. And I do so in a country which has been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs by the "instant on" feature of TV sets and scream bloody murder if something takes more than a day to solve. We are taking on the Salafist Jihadists in two of the major provinces in Iraq where they have stupidly gathered, thinking that "Hijra" (voluntary expatriation to carry out Jihad) was a good idea to take on the Americans in Iraq.
We have done that despite those who suddenly express regrets over the loss of lives in the battle. Even though over 9,000 military personnel died on active duty between 1980 and 1984 without so much as one whimper from the "we care about the troops" brigade.
I also find fault with the false "mantra" of those who constantly harp on the WMD issue without ever having read the Congressional Resolution which authorized offensive military operations in Iraq. A review of the reasons contained in Public Law #107-243 finds scant mention of the WMD issue. Last but not least is the charge that these operations in Iraq are about oil. Since over 80% of Iraqi oil exports are under contract to a French firm (Compagnie Petrol De Francais) I'm at a loss to figure out that charge.

Answer 6

My support was going to Afghanistan, that's it. I will always support the troops and will always be grateful for their courage and dedication. But going into Iraq was 15 yrs too late. Better late than never doesn't apply to this situation. But I guess I can talk this way seeing as I didn't have to live there. This country might suffer 'cause the whole world wasn't united in this fight.

Answer 7

My thoughts are that we went in there, and now, if we leave, the whole thing will fall apart, and the death count will be far worse than it is right now. Plus, as much as people hate to say it, one of the things we are doing over there is fighting non-Iraqis. These are people who would be plotting how to blow up things HERE if it wasn't for us shooting them over there. That is the truth. I have been there, my father was there, and my wife is there now, we all agree that while it may not have been the perfect thing to do, it is probably the right thing. Most of the people I know who have been over there (and 90% of my friends are military or former military) think that this was the right thing to do and support the war. Sorry to burst your little bubble, but not all vets are members of Iraq Vets Against the War. Most, in fact, aren't.

If we are forced to leave Iraq, not through military defeat, but through political whining, terrorist groups will call it a victory, and brag about it, while becoming emboldened to strike at us. This isn't Vietnam, where all the NVA and Viet Cong cared about was getting control of South Vietnam. These people believe that God is telling them to kill or convert everyone who doesn't agree with them. They will come after us over here. When they attack US troops in Iraq, they aren't doing it just to kill those men and women, they are doing it because they know that the press will show it live and in color, and get people like you to denounce the war. Every time you publicly do that, you embolden the people who are doing this to cause more damage.

As to your "we are never gonna stop terrorism its not possible its a endless fight agaisnt it" comment, well, then, why don't we just tell the terrorists where you live, and let them come and blow the s*** out of your home town? I mean, if we can't stop it, why fight it. Maybe you should try to get a law passed making Islam our national religion, so that they will leave us alone. You sound like someone from the 1930s, saying "man, those Nazis, we're never going to stop them, why don't we just give them what they want, maybe they will leave us alone.", or like one of those airheaded leftists of the 1980s "Communism is here to stay, we have to coexist with them, maybe if we weren't so beligerant, and if we tried to be more like them we wouldn't have these problems."

These insurgents, terrrorists, whatever, want ALL of us dead. The Koran demands conversion or submission of all non Muslims. I've read it. They don't want coexistance, they want to win. That is why we need to fight them there, because otherwise, despite what any leftist says, we will have to fight them here.

EDIT: For dcguy. Your little "enlightenment" scheme might work except for one small thing. These pricks we are fighting don't want "peaceful coexistance", they want dominance. They truly HATE us. We have to fight them somewhere, and to be honest, I would rather fight them in Iraq than fight them here.

Answer 8

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The war appears to be an excuse to have a South Korea like set of permanent military bases in a strategic location. That's great for world domination, but I'm 100% opposed. Even if it wasn't immoral to invade Iraq, it causes more security problems than it solves.

Answer 9

The war in Afghanistan was ok, an inevitable and reasonable response to 911.

The war in Iraq was a stupid idea before the invasion and its a stupid idea now.

It does nothing to keep any of the untold numbers of barely organized, irregular "terrorist" troops all over the world from going to America, or wherever else they want to go.

Half or more of the people America considers its allies in Iraq now appear to be "terrorists" as well. Why just shoot at the invader when the invader is stupid enough to supply you with huge piles of weapons and cash?

They're just waiting us out over there. Until our credit runs out. Which by the way it came close to doing last week or so if you bother to watch the news.

The US can't afford the neocon oil empire wet dream. The only question is how close they'll come to breaking their own economy before they figure that out.

Answer 10

I wanted to respond to Maxx. He Writes:

"Why do you think that we cannot defeat terrorism? We were told for years that the USSR was unstoppable; our only hope of survival was Mutually Assured Destruction."


-There is a big difference between "the war on terror" and the cold war. the cold war had a definable target. The cold war had a definable "enemy" [communism]. The war on terror does not have a definable enemy or definition. Define "terrorism." What countries, what people fall under that definition. Tim McVey was a U.S. terrorist, maybe we should declare war on ourselves. The cold war's enemy were nation-state governments. The war on terror, again, deals with individuals. The cold war dealt with MAD, but our world wasn't globalized. Nations were still autonomous. Goods and services were not as mobile as they are today.

Look at it this way, it seems many people think they are living in the 21st century, but they still think in the 18th century...We're dressing up like the red coats and expecting to win a war on visitor's soil....that's why we can't defeat terrorism. There will always be some crazy individual/martyr or small factional-cell who will use terror to get their way....It's like trying to win the war on dust,

No matter how hard you clean, there will always be more dust. Sad but true. The only true way to win the war on terror is the enlightenment of all mankind towards non-violent actions. We could all take a page out of Ghandi's book.