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

..
acknowledging that he KNOWINGLY told many untruths that led us to this endless war?
would you have had the guts to lay down arms and refuse to fight if you felt strongly enough about YOUR part in an illegal war?
This is a serious question. If it makes you angry, do not answer.

2007-12-30 04:17:35 · 22 answers · asked by rare2findd 6 in Politics & Government Politics

.
I'm not a democrat
I'm under age 24 and am a female
I simply asked a question
I believe the Iraq 'war' was a pretense to control oil revenues NO MATTER what bushboy says.
I would never serve in an ILLEGAL WAR.
I did not vote for bush
Bush DID indeed lie, and he knew it.
Sorry you do not agree but then, this is a democracy isn't it.
We can believe as we wish.
and we do.

2007-12-30 04:35:08 · update #1

Concern!
where have you been - Saddam NOR any Iraqi ever aimed those planes into the towers. and considering all of the suspicion surrounding 911, none of us are sure are we. We DO know that Saddam didn't do it, nor any of the 24,000,000 (oops - more like 23,000,000 since we killed over a million Iraqis since we invaded) so bring yourself up to date. If Osama was really the perpertrator, cowboy bush would have made certain that he was captured. But he didn't, which raises even more suspicions....that he would invade a country who never did anything to us..tht he would spend billions on Iraq, rather than to take that money - or even a portion of it - to catch the real perpertrator of 911. He says it was Osama bin laden. humm
Unusual isn't it.

2007-12-30 05:16:19 · update #2

22 answers

No. I would never go fight in a war started by a draft-dodging, chickenhawk traitors like george w bush & **** (FIVE deferments) cheney.

2007-12-30 09:30:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

you're comparing porn to smoking? If somebody desires to destroy his or her very own existence, enable them to take that danger. in the event that they're dumb adequate to do it, or do no longer understand the ends up of their strikes, shame on them. once you get right down to it, that's purely intercourse. If a woman needs a popularity as a ****, it fairly is her very own selection, no count if that's precise or incorrect. If a guy desires to be primary for determining to purchase around, it fairly is his venture. Tobacco is risky no count what the age of the smoker is. no count if he/she is 14 or 35, it is going to be purely as risky. you could think of an 18 twelve months old isn't the right age to make a existence changing selection. so how old is the right age? 21? 21 is how old somebody ought to be to smoke, drink, and characteristic intercourse? Why no longer make the using and vote casting age 21 besides? using a motor vehicle is extra risky then smoking. it rather is a approaches deadlier, can bypass incorrect at any instant, and is plenty extra high priced. If an 18 twelve months old isn't mature adequate to have intercourse, they are not mature adequate to vote the two. i'm no longer asserting i think of porn is okay, or that smoking is physically powerful. For the checklist, i think of something below sixteen is purely too youthful yo have intercourse. yet what is going on between 2 consenting people of age isn't any business enterprise of every physique else, or the government (who enforces the regulations).

2016-11-26 20:48:25 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

well considering i was in the military already, and i didn't really agree with the war, i feel it takes more guts and is less selfish for one to go ahead and do what he is ordered to do, i would not have change any decisions i made regarding this subject in particular, i would rather have a fighting chance against terrorist than be sent off into prison or Levin worth and rot away forgotten while the war goes on because i made a stupid decision that would have no affect on anything other than my own life, people can protest and rebel all they want, but in the end the politicians will still do what they feel is the best decision.
and considering i did not agree with the political decisions made so i left the military after my time was up respectfully and moved on with my life with honor, there are wiser, more civilized ways to protest this war that are more effective.

2007-12-30 04:39:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

I volunteered to go shortly after the war had just begun in 2004. I signed onto join the Army. I was rejected two days before I was to leave for basic training for some medical junk my recruiter assured me wouldn't affect my chances of joining. So, yeah, I would. And hopefully they'd have allowed me to join the second time around.

2007-12-30 04:58:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I offer you the historical example of U.S. Grant. As a young officer, he fought bravely in the war against Mexico. He later wrote that he thought, then and later, that the war was a sin by USA and illegal. Nevertheless, he did his duty as an armed servant of the republic, whose decisions on peace or war are made by its legitimate, elected representatives.
Soldiers can't pick and choose which wars they fight in. And it's easy 'bravely' to go AWOL and let them risk their lives trying to win stupid wars we send them to, instead of losing them.
Which recent 'legal' war would you have volunteered for, if you were 18 again? We can't wait for our own personal ideal war to arrive!

2007-12-30 04:42:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Knowing what I know now about life and how things work with people who hate the United States (including home-grown Leftists) and those who lust to kill Americans (Islamic Jihadists), the answer is absolutely YES.

First, your premise is inaccurate. Bush is ACCUSED by his haters of KNOWINGLY telling truths that led us into an "endless war." That is a lie told by extreme Leftist elements that are fighting for the demise of the US, as it is currently constituted. If you believe this accusation, then you believe something that is not true.

I don't know how to tell you to properly inform yourself, other than to say that you should always be skeptical of every accusation from both sides, and then check both sides out for yourself. That means read the New York Times and The Nation magazine, but also (and here's the gutsy part) read American Spectator and maybe even listen - REALLY LISTEN - to Rush Limbaugh and others of the conservative persuasion.

Then make up your own mind.

It is quite apparent that the default setting for information presented to the American public is extremely biased toward the Left, and extremely biased against the Right. This creeps in everywhere, from the school system (K - Grad School) to the mainstream news media, to the entertainment culture. If you've not gone beyond that sphere of influence, you will believe many, many things that are not true.

Essentially, Iraq finally needed to be invaded to take out what the world reasonably believed was a WMD cache. To say that belief was unreasonable is to choose to believe a falsity without scrutinizing all the information. The Middle East is extremely violent and unstable, and the possibility of WMDs (which I believe were dispersed precisely because of the US's seriousness) was too great for us to take a chance. Hussein was America hater number one, and it is not unreasonable to think that he might not have ultimately cooperated even with Iran, even after thousands of years of hatred between the two nations. THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND. Check out Japan and Germany during WWII for a good example of that axiom.

There is no negotiating with terrorists; they will use any means at any time to strike out; they will cooperate with people they otherwise hate, in order to achieve their ends; and the soft, silly American style of letting bad guys off the hook because they had it rough, or deep down they're just like anyone else, is worse than a lie: It is evil.

Sandy Burger tells the CIA not to kill Usama bin Laden in the late 90's because of this cowardly stance, and bin Laden kills 3,000 innocent Americans in 2001.

People who don't understand that have a great deal of growing up to do.

2007-12-30 04:45:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 6

Truthfully, not at first. I didn't feel we should be there. But, after seeing what's happening to the Iraqi people, and so many of our own, I would have gone in a heartbeat, no matter how I felt about Bush, and the reasons.

2007-12-30 04:30:08 · answer #7 · answered by MassLass 4 · 4 3

Let's take your question seriously one item at a time..Liberal!

These untruths you speak of were also spoken by 99.9% of your liberal leaders in the years prior to Mr. Bush taking office. This is a hard one for you liberals to swallow, unlike Monica, because as always you like to parade in front a camera and spew and then deny that that was you saying it and/or it was taken out of context.

Mr. Bush's army is totally of a volunteer force, unlike your Golden Boy's war...Vietnam. Oh and your Golden Boy was none other than JFK. During his war more Americans fled to Canada and other countries to avoid fighting in a liberal led war. Why you ask? Well, just look at the body counts. Iraq war has been going on since 3-19-2003 (57.5 months) and 3901 Americans have been killed, that's and average of 67.8 killed per month. In the Vietnam war, it started in 1965 and ended in 1975. I'll give you credit for the entire year of 1975 to lower the average, slighlty. 53, 201 Americans were killed, that's an average of 443 killed per month. You see, you liberals don't know how to fight another country, truly support our troops or finish a fight. SO...leave it to us republicans to keep you safe.

Oh...you do know that your liberal friends are in control of the house and senate..don't you? If this war is illegal and you liberals have been looking for anything to impeach Mr. Bush, then why not this "ILLEGAL" war. Sleep well for the next year knowing you will be safe until Mr. Bush leaves office.

2007-12-30 04:42:45 · answer #8 · answered by citizenvnfla 4 · 6 6

without hesitation I would go fight. An FYI, however, this is your Congress's war not Mr. Bush's!

2007-12-30 05:32:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Yeah I would. Soldiers don't ask questions, they follow orders. Thats the foundation of the military. If everyone thought like you this is how war would be.

C.O.: "Private! Get to the bunker right now and call in air support!"
You: "But sirrrrrr its faaarrrr and this war is not even justified"

2007-12-30 04:23:57 · answer #10 · answered by Adeptus Astartes 5 · 7 3

fedest.com, questions and answers