Title: The BUSH in Iraq issue.
Description: Should he or should he not be there?
Yuko - May 24, 2004 08:26 PM (GMT)
I think he should get them OUT OF THERE. Then send in a few nukes and take care of the whole thing.
Thats the brutal idea. Ide bcome intellectual. But my head hurts :blink:
Chase - May 25, 2004 12:03 PM (GMT)
I believe that we should keep our men and women of the armed forces there still, because if we do push out too soon, Iraq might just become what we're fighting for it to not be all over again.And nuking them is just too inhumane.There are too many innocent ppl over in Iraq who want the freedom.
Nails - May 27, 2004 12:08 AM (GMT)
I think that he should gradually remove them from iraq. And what about afghanistan?
DJ Werrwulf - May 28, 2004 07:49 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Nails @ May 27 2004, 12:08 AM) |
| I think that he should gradually remove them from iraq. And what about afghanistan? |
I have to agree with Nails on this one.
Moving them all out at once is doing just what the terrorists want. AMERICANS ARE NOT SISSIES, YOU BUFFOONS!!! I'd like to keep that as an established fact...
...even if it only applies to the Armed Forces.
But if we leave now, then someone just as bad as or even worse than Saddam Hussein would take over.
There'd be civil wars, millions would die!! :(
And if anyone else thinks nuking the place is a good idea...
...you just speak up, and I'll find your house.
But we can't stay over there forever. We've got troops stationed in Germany, Japan, and Korea, for crying out loud, that have been there since FRIKKIN' WWII!!!
That's sad. We can't do that with Iraq. I think we should leave once it's safe for the people. If no one but terrorists lived over there, then we could safely start our bombing campaign up again. But the vast majority want some kind of true democracy to be set up. We could lower our numbers, but never remove them all without assurance that the Iraqis could govern themselves in a civilized manner without us.
Metal Sonic - June 1, 2004 07:32 PM (GMT)
man this is destroying American reputation thanx BUSH :angry: plus this is all a waste of time and money.
Yuko - July 6, 2004 02:48 AM (GMT)
I know that im being very "Disconcerning" right now, but we had focused on our MAIN purpose in the East, Alot of this would never of happened.
Bush still thinks that he needs to fix what his dad screwed up. TERRORISM is/was our target in the past.
If Sadam wants to F*** himself and his country up the @$$ then let him. Once they've done to themselfs what they want, we can come and clean it up. Bush should have continued to fight agains OSAMA, and taken him out. Then if things continued, Take out sadam.
WE HAD GOT HIM! DAMMIT! If we could have just gotten the info out of sadam while we had him (then taken him out of our misery and everyone elses) things would be a whole lot better now. If the iraqies want to retaliate, we can take care of them. Bush is just wasting our peoples lives.
Canitoch - July 6, 2004 04:03 AM (GMT)
I KNOW he is wasting lives! *smashes his head on nail* WHOOPS!
He seriously does want to finish what his father started. Of corse I hate Saddam, I don't approve what he did, but however we had no right to get into a war with him. There isnt any W.D.M..and Bush all of a sudden makes something else up.
I don't know if its me but I rarly here anything about Osama..but then I could be wrong.
Threepwood - July 6, 2004 09:26 AM (GMT)
War starts with W, metaphorically AND literally. This invasion has only earned us Democrats a shot at Kerry for president
Venom - July 6, 2004 09:18 PM (GMT)
I was once told, that once you're in the army/marines/navy/air force, you're ALWAYS there. So, I believe that if Bush feels a need to keep them in Iraq, he should do so... There's nothing wrong with it in my opinion. We're fighting a war, and, we shouldn't just drop out...
Shawn Michaels - December 29, 2004 03:14 AM (GMT)
We shouldn't be there in the first place. o_O We clearly invaded Iraq.
But yes, we can't just take them out. We got them in the middle of a civil war, and you don't drop out in the middle of the war. Its really sad to say...But yes, we NEED to keep them there. I hate to say that though, because I hate Bush with a burning passion.
What I hate is when people say we didn't deserve 9/11, yes it's sad all those people died. But did you really not see it coming? America's been an ass for so long. We were destinied to get hit by SOMEONE. >_> And I'm not happy that those terrorists decided to kill us because it wasn't right, but...Blah. It's like a bully and a kid. The bully's always mean to the kid, for the whole school year, then when the kid hits back at him and makes the bully cry and go back to his mommy, you know that he deserved it, but was it right? No.
Anyway, that's how I see it. >_>
Kiefer Sutherland - December 29, 2004 04:23 AM (GMT)
See, the problem here is that alot of people are quite hypocritical when it comes to the so called 'innocent people' in this war...let me explain...
Im not denying that Bush lied about the WMD...they were obviously not there...but someone HAD to go into iraq...and do you know why? Because Saddam is an evil bastard...he killed innocent people for some of the most petty reasons imaginable...he threatened people's way of life...which in turn jeopardises our security as civilized people...there is no doubt that he had to be stopped...and that meant invading Iraq...and by claiming that bush did the wrong thing because he killed some innocent people, is really being very unrealistic and very small minded...we are talking about a dictator who killed millions in not only his own country but also in Iran and other surrounding countries...
However, as much as I will say it needed to be done, I will admit that Bush didnt play the game very well...but...having said that, he has shown that a few lies wont get you bumped out of the white house...and quite frankly, the public have made a good decision...
Fallen Tears - January 4, 2005 03:03 AM (GMT)
I believe that Bush isn't very bright for sending them over there in the first place (in fact i hate every decision he has made) but if he decides to remove the troops now, then most likely they will find away to retaliate eventually, inless we make them a mindless buzzing clone, except miniturized. I highly disagree with what's going on over there, but we shouldn't make an already as it is put a "war-bent" country more "war-bent".....
And war-bent meaning more headed toward war...
Treya - January 4, 2005 07:05 PM (GMT)
Clearly Bush is doing what he thinks is best. Since he is the president we should try to be supportive even if we don't agree. I think he should keep the forces in Iraq because otherwise things will probably only get worse. Most of the people against it are so becuase they have family in the war and want them back. This is completely understandable. No one wants a family member to be killed, however certain things must be done in order to maintain peace even if we don't like the president's decisions.
CelestialFury - January 9, 2005 06:06 AM (GMT)
I'm going boths ways on this. One we do need to bring our people home. Their families miss them and they are getting killed from all these suicide bombers and what not which is just ridiculous. They are over there busting their butts to try and make things and they still have 'rebels' that want to just kill off us.
Then again they do need to stay over there because of the 'rebels' and try to keep peace in the country. I have even seen the tape of that Nick guy that was a reporter or something and heard his screams and seen his head come right off with that rusty knife. I about broke into tears but still that is one of the reasons why we still fight. To get the people who wish that America would fall apart. I think it really comes down to other countries being jealous and no matter what they do, we only get stronger. Blah I went off topic again.