dairygirl4u2c Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 ty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catholicinsd Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Somebody already started a thread about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 how many more Iraq threads are we gonna start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xTrishaxLynnx Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 [quote name='catholicinsd' post='1169571' date='Jan 18 2007, 08:28 PM'] Somebody already started a thread about this... [/quote] plus i dont think this is a topic you can confine to yes or no answers. i don't think troops should be sent there if they're not needed, but if they are, then they should be. and whether they're needed or not is a whole other question. i think it's kind of pointless to post polls about the war when there are threads about it where people can fully express and explain their opinions on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavenseeker Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 idk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeniteAdoremus Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 [quote name='heavenseeker' post='1169750' date='Jan 19 2007, 05:46 AM'] idk? [/quote] "I don't know". Oooh... the numbers are very pretty at the moment: 44.44%, 22.22% and 33.33%... *goes into physics geek moment* But the other posters are right, Iraq (I'm not sure whether there still are Dutch soldiers there, but I know someone who served there) deserves more than a yes/no poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJRod55 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Bush has a Catch 22 situation. If he does not add the troops disaster looms, yet if he does there is NO guarantee of success. This is a lesson to be learnbed not one to gloss over. The best intentions have come back once again to haunt the American people. Where were the US and the UK when the Genocide hit Rwanda? or Bosnia? The truth is they did not have economic value, oil, etc. This is a war for access to OIL. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. May God Bless all those young military personnel who give their lives today and tomorrow for the whims and desires of their elected politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Knight Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 [quote name='Rod' post='1172307' date='Jan 21 2007, 01:59 PM'] Bush has a Catch 22 situation. If he does not add the troops disaster looms, yet if he does there is NO guarantee of success. This is a lesson to be learnbed not one to gloss over. The best intentions have come back once again to haunt the American people. Where were the US and the UK when the Genocide hit Rwanda? or Bosnia? The truth is they did not have economic value, oil, etc. This is a war for access to OIL. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. May God Bless all those young military personnel who give their lives today and tomorrow for the whims and desires of their elected politicians. [/quote] Just a quick note. You are oversimplifying the issues in Rwanda and Bosnia. Special note on Bosnia, we're still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 [quote name='Rod' post='1172307' date='Jan 21 2007, 01:59 PM'] Bush has a Catch 22 situation. If he does not add the troops disaster looms, yet if he does there is NO guarantee of success. This is a lesson to be learnbed not one to gloss over. The best intentions have come back once again to haunt the American people. Where were the US and the UK when the Genocide hit Rwanda? or Bosnia? The truth is they did not have economic value, oil, etc. This is a war for access to OIL. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. May God Bless all those young military personnel who give their lives today and tomorrow for the whims and desires of their elected politicians. [/quote] you act like you're making an Al Gore statement there. As if our troops dont see reasons to be there and blindly walk into death. Maybe there is some oil motive (although not the main one), so many of the military personnel actually want to be there to finish the job for the Iraqi people. Also, this wasnt just a case of genocide. Saddam was harboring weapons he should not have had, possibly assisting terrorists as well. This engagement would had more to do with Americas own safety than Rwanda and Bosnia (Im not saying we shouldnt have gone in there too however). Now we just need to finish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Iraq is a strategic position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 (edited) My two cents: Whether or not you agree with the US-led regime change in Iraq -- and I do not -- it is done. It is a disaster over there, but reducing the number of troops or even keeping the current number is only going to prolong the violence and bloodshed. Obviously, the job isn't getting done with the current number. Right now, unfortunately, more troops is the only way to quicken peace. So, if peace is what we really want for Iraq, we should support this request by the president. Edited February 19, 2007 by Nathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Knight Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 [quote name='Nathan' post='1199996' date='Feb 18 2007, 08:33 PM']My two cents: ...It is a disaster over there...[/quote] Please elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 another thing: this is not a Bush thing. Clinton would also have gone into Iraq. He said it himself, Saddam needs to be taken out. He was asked if there is any other way besides using force and he said there is not. The only difference between Clinton and Bush in that regard then is 9/11. (also, we dont really know if Clinton would have finished the job like Bush is doing, since he is a democrat - 'invested in defeat' if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Sometimes Soldiers who have seen combat find it offensive when people who have not been in combat and are not in a situation to understand even 10% of the implications of what is happening over there; debate or discuss what they should do. It is just non-informed monday morning Qb with life and death implications Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now