This poll is probably made all the time, but do you think Bush was right with going in to Iraq before he had the okay from the UN. I dont think he should have gone in, but now tht we are in there, we mine as well finish it up. That way we dont lok more stupid than we already are!
I voted for Never should have, but finish it up!
If you have other ideas. Post 'em
If you vote other!
Say why!
Maybe others will agree with your other choice. I can't think of everything you can fugure!
Ugh... This topic is going to continue to respawn everyday!
I voted that we should have never been there. It was only because Americans' greediness to get more money that caused this catastrophe.
What ^ said.
But is it a war on Terror? Or a war on Terrorism?
Which one? Bush seem to cannot make up his mind.
And besides: You cannot fight a war on an emotion.
fighting terrorism NOW is like trying to hit a swarm of bees with your fist. little effect & your arm gets bit by bees.
the only way to seriously damage the terrorist organisations is to remoove their sponsorship. i dont know is bush doing this... but he really should.
Wait a minute. I support a war on terrorism --- the one where we went to Afghanistan to go get Osama Bin Laden. What did attacking Iraq have to do with getting the terrorists who attacked us?
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 25 2006, 11:28 AM)
Wait a minute. I support a war on terrorism --- the one where we went to Afghanistan to go get Osama Bin Laden. What did attacking Iraq have to do with getting the terrorists who attacked us?
[right][snapback]452905[/snapback][/right]
Yeah i know :\ i agree with dt
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 25 2006, 12:28 PM)
Wait a minute. I support a war on terrorism --- the one where we went to Afghanistan to go get Osama Bin Laden. What did attacking Iraq have to do with getting the terrorists who attacked us?
[right][snapback]452905[/snapback][/right]
Fighting Iraq is fighting the war on Terror.
Wait a minute. How can you fight a war on an emotion?
And plus: It's for Oil.
Whats done is Done, no use biznatching around in the Past, we're already in Iraq, it would be a huge waste if we just Left now. Finish the damn job and bring our guys home!
Actually, Saddam Hussein kept terrorists out of his country. Why? He was evil. Evil people are greedy, and he wanted Iraq for himself. Now then, invading Iraq, and calling it a Crusade, that caused more terrorist shiz. Now the Arabic world thinks Bush is leading a "holy" war for money, like the original crusades. So, they take up arms and fight. Terrorists, but insurgents too.
And I warn you, don't be farkheads and use Insurgent and Terrorist interchangeably. Insurgents are freedom fighters, they are fighting the US Army in particular because they want their country back. If Russia invaded us, and we took up arms and fought the Russian Army, we'd be Insurgents.
Terrorists blow shiz up for the helluvit. Nothing more.
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 25 2006, 02:28 PM)
Wait a minute. I support a war on terrorism --- the one where we went to Afghanistan to go get Osama Bin Laden. What did attacking Iraq have to do with getting the terrorists who attacked us?
[right][snapback]452905[/snapback][/right]
My thoughts exactly.
QUOTE(Mp)Lyon @ Mar 25 2006, 04:22 PM)
Whats done is Done, no use biznatching around in the Past, we're already in Iraq, it would be a huge waste if we just Left now. Finish the damn job and bring our guys home!
[right][snapback]452957[/snapback][/right]
It's already a waste
now. 9/11 was the pretext to go there, and three years later it's still the same government front for corporate cash-ins. Bush's idea of "democracy" is elections. There were elections in Iraq, and elections in Afghanistan. Guess what? The same things that have gone on for decades keep happening in Afghanistan, and Iraq is a hornet's nest of violence and oil money.
...
How I see it, there is no such thing is the war on terror. Only x and y, where x = fear and y = military police.
Iraq has effectively decayed into civil war now. 50-60 people die daily from gunfights in the streets.
QUOTE(Snake)Ling @ Mar 25 2006, 01:25 PM)
Actually, Saddam Hussein kept terrorists out of his country. Why? He was evil. Evil people are greedy, and he wanted Iraq for himself. Now then, invading Iraq, and calling it a Crusade, that caused more terrorist shiz. Now the Arabic world thinks Bush is leading a "holy" war for money, like the original crusades. So, they take up arms and fight. Terrorists, but insurgents too.
[right][snapback]452959[/snapback][/right]
I saw a great interview with a military expert on the war in Iraq. It was great, but one line was this: "You just can't keep a standing Christian army in an Arab country. Didn't the Crusades teach us anything?"QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 25 2006, 02:28 PM)
Wait a minute. I support a war on terrorism --- the one where we went to Afghanistan to go get Osama Bin Laden. What did attacking Iraq have to do with getting the terrorists who attacked us?
[right][snapback]452905[/snapback][/right]
LOL... It is so true! What are we doing at Iraq when I thought we were supposed to be at Afganistan.
It is all greedy Americans who thought we could use the oil deposits in Iraq and be rich who caused the disaster right now.QUOTE(DeadlyInnocence @ Mar 26 2006, 12:31 AM)
LOL... It is so true! What are we doing at Iraq when I thought we were supposed to be at Afganistan.
It is all greedy Americans who thought we could use the oil deposits in Iraq and be rich who caused the disaster right now.
[right][snapback]453297[/snapback][/right]
Don't generalize. Bush's approval rating is at about 34%, meaning the majority of Americans do NOT support Bush's actions.
QUOTE(Arbitrary @ Mar 25 2006, 06:18 PM)
It's already a waste now. 9/11 was the pretext to go there, and three years later it's still the same government front for corporate cash-ins. Bush's idea of "democracy" is elections. There were elections in Iraq, and elections in Afghanistan. Guess what? The same things that have gone on for decades keep happening in Afghanistan, and Iraq is a hornet's nest of violence and oil money.
...
How I see it, there is no such thing is the war on terror. Only x and y, where x = fear and y = military police.
[right][snapback]453144[/snapback][/right]
War on Terror? How can you have a war on emotion?
I would assume they are refferring to the concept of the things/people that cause terror, and not the literal emotion terror.
Uh, not according to Bush.
He says Terror and Terrorism.
Which one is it then eh?
I would say:
@Iraq: We shouldn't have gone in, waste of time and money and its a mess, but while we are there I think we can do some real good, now lets finish up and get home.
@War on Terrorism/terror/what ever floats your boat: We should learn from the terrorists (the legit ones) and not fight terrorist directly with soldiers, but with special ops team placed around the world. They could be just a silent as any terrorist and should have no connections with the US besides that every week they get a message of orders for the week. I think we need to make the terrorists uneasy when they sleep at night. We should throw 10,000 men at 600 terrorists in a region when a free lance SEAL team of 8-14 could get the job done just as well, but it may take longer for them.
My vote is: Never should have gone in, but lets finish up and get home.
ADDITION:
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 25 2006, 06:46 PM)
I saw a great interview with a military expert on the war in Iraq. It was great, but one line was this: "You just can't keep a standing Christian army in an Arab country. Didn't the Crusades teach us anything?"
[right][snapback]453177[/snapback][/right]
Majority in the Army is probably Christian yes, but you forget the other religions in the Army as well.
That statement by that men probably pissed off a lot of Americas who embrace diversity.
QUOTE(Kellimus @ Mar 26 2006, 10:14 AM)
War on Terror? How can you have a war on emotion?
[right][snapback]453337[/snapback][/right]
i think terrorism is not an emotion, the hatered that drives it is an emotion. but terrorism is an action.
Whatever
I may be wrong but just go with it, its a poll
for fun, just answer the question!
QUOTE
Majority in the Army is probably Christian yes, but you forget the other religions in the Army as well.
That statement by that men probably pissed off a lot of Americas who embrace diversity.
Since when has it mattered that not everyone in a group fits the group's stereotype? The Arabs think of us as a Crusading Christian army; it doesn't matter who in our army isn't Christian.QUOTE(Kellimus @ Mar 26 2006, 02:14 AM)
War on Terror? How can you have a war on emotion?
[right][snapback]453337[/snapback][/right]
I probably should have clarified that better, in terms of syntax.
I meant to say: There's no actual war on terror, there exists only fear and the military (not a war on fear).
I know.. I am just trying to show everyone how Bush has been pulling everyone along by their nutsack.
If any of you remember a few years ago it wasn't a war on terrorism but not that the World has actually opened its eyes because of recent events and the fact that we are paying more attention to what goes on their since we have an occuptation force in the Middle East (and actual terrorist attacks, Madrid Bombings-9/11-ect), it's become a war on Terrorism.