Is 5000+ American lives, wounded soldiers and trillions of dollars worth it to stop...?

Question

Another 19 Saudi terrorist with box cutters terrorist attack?


Does anyone actually think Bin Laden is in Iraq?

It seems a bit drastic o me especially when you are in the wrong countries.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are haboring more Al Quada than Iraq.

Then why do repub use this line "I rather be fighting them there than here?"

BTW I consider myself a true conservative with a few liberal views.

jrldsmith I say you end the war and come home and stop spending money instead of invading Iraq and steal their oil for private companies.

BuggedInMN if I could vote, it would be for Ron Paul...not Hillary

Answer 1

It wouldn't really be any of your business, since you have admitted to being a Canadian

Answer 2

Is 5000+ American lives, wounded soldiers and trillions of dollars worth it to stop...?

Another 19 Saudi terrorist with box cutters terrorist attack?

Answer: Are you really sure that's where they'd stop if they had the choice?


Does anyone actually think Bin Laden is in Iraq?

Answer: No, it is quite likely he is in Pakistan. Iraq is a separate issue that also needs our attention.

It seems a bit drastic o me especially when you are in the wrong countries.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are haboring more Al Quada than Iraq.

Answer: Yes, and both Pakistan and Saudi Arabian governments have been struggling with them and the attacks of Al Quada for longer than we have. They are allies in this war, who are also under attack. Why would we attack an ally who is also under attack by our enemy as well?

Then why do repub use this line "I rather be fighting them there than here?"

Answer: Though I am a democrat (and not politically bigoted or foolish enough to think that name-calling adds weight to my argument), I would suggest they use it because it is their preference. I come from a family that escaped Islam in the 1950's and have been expecting this war for decades. It isn't over, it won't be for some time. Either I will convert to an Islamic nation of America, or they will adopt free speech, freedom of religion, and equality for all races.

Having read most of their holy books, and believed them when they say they want us to convert, submit, or die, I would prefer we continue to create the largest fly trap in the world in Iraq rather than fight them here.

BTW I consider myself a true conservative with a few liberal views.

Answer: I am democrat; not a liberal; not a socialist. First and foremost, ahead of my party, I am a patriot.

Answer 3

If the war in Iraq actually had anything to do with terrorism and that these operations had a chance to put an end to terrorism, as Bush claims, I would say yes. And that is what is so compelling about the Bush argument.

The problem is it doesn't correspond with reality. First, you don't reduce terrorism by creating war zones. That should be a no-brainer, but apparently it's a difficult concept to grasp. And you certainly don't reduce the risk of terrorism by arming this and that group in the Middle East in some insane global chess game gone horribly wrong. Plus, the number of civilian casualties and chaos created is absolutely unacceptable. If we're going to fight terrorism, our methods should be better than theirs. Proportionate to country size, we have visited 350 times 9/11 on Iraq. And then the right wonders why they hate us and provide the inane answer that they're jealous of our freedoms. How can we have any credibility stating we fight terrorism when our actions have even worse effects on the countries in which we claim to fight it?

This is the logistical aspect of it. Then of course, there's the aspect of intent. I don't believe everyone in the Bush administration (certainly not those PHDs who studied the Middle East) actually thought for a second going to war with Iraq would stop terrorism. So what's the bigger picture, then?

Answer 4

When money is saved to balance a budget and then that leads to deaths of persons, ( may they rest in peace), then additional lives are lost due to ensuing conflicts--there is a problem. At some point in time and reason, a rational decision needs to be made that does two things primarily; one, prevents these kinds of troubles from happening and two, doesn't allow conflicts from altering the fundamental values of a Country that already has freedom.

Answer 5

There was no threat coming from Baghdad - if you think back on 2002, there was the steady drum beat for war coming from the Bush Administration. Now, 5 years after the invasion, the war continues with no end in sight. Admit it, Bush supporters, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. The Iraqis are incapable of running their own country. We will be there for years and years, a constant drain on our country. For Nothing.

Answer 6

Hillary wants the troops out immediately. So does nearly every democrat in Congress.

Pelosi wants them out yesterday...

But when asked, Hillary said 2013.

Why aren't the leading liberal nanny's such as yourself writing to them and complaining about it instead of wasting your time here at Yahoo looking stupid by being completely non/counter productive over it?

Answer 7

What an exaggeration! Bin Lauden is dead and has been for the last 6 years. We are in Iraq to help them adjust to the new government system and to help keep the insurgents from murdering too many innocent Iraqis.

Answer 8

So you are saying we should abandon Iraq to Iran and go spend much more bloodand money invading and nation building in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

Answer 9

well, if we hadnt invaded Iraq Sadam would still be in power and the terrorist attacks would be possibly nuclear...which is 10 times as worse as what u said.

and no, Bin Laden is if Afganistan or pakistan.

Answer 10

seems that you have conveniently forgotten that the democrats voted for the war with the same info bush had. all the biggies were on board--clinton, kerr, reid etc. but when the going got tough they ran like a bunch of rats and started blaming it on bush. what a bunch of terds!

Answer 11

Well the government doesn't seem to think so. I pay my taxes and the people join the military and fights for the government, they pay taxes to and they are not planing to strike. So I would have to say no the government knows what they have to do to achieve whatever it is they want to achieve.