Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DeadlyVision
I did a research on the net alot of lives has been lost, They estimate it over 1000 trooops and even more iraqies being killed.
I ask for what? Bush said, "Iraq has Weapons Of Mass Destruction!" After an further investigation they found No weapons at all.
Bush, Motivated troops by showin them 9-11 pictures, And as a soldier u have to fight for whats right.
Bush Administration could not answer any questions about the war! Why is that?
I found out that america went to war to protect the credibilty of United Nations. And not the protect the people of america.
Bush also said, "Al Qeyda is linked to iraq (saddam) Well They captured saddam, what changed i ask? And after long period of the war Bush said," Iraq is not linked to al qeyda".......confusing aint it.
And did america really went to "Free Iraq" as they said or to dehuminize them and abuse them in prisons (Every1 seen the pics of the abuse)
Whats your view on this. Did you even know Why America went to war?..........Did you kno that Oil was the biggest reason for the war and not terrorism.
..........................
|
lol...well no one wants to see death n no one is there to see lives lost..however..
When the clinton admin. was running, they had several different attacks ranging from 93-2000 on the Pentagon along with the trade center along with being urged to reinforce there security through different helpads, along with making sure attacks like that where enhanced to avoid further casualities..
Clinton focused more on fixing the Health issue and then when bush coems into the adminstration he hired Condolleza rice along with reinstating powell..
Now...They had another attack, so if they had enhanced the security before it would have been preventable saving lives..
it wasnt so much him wanting americans to lose lives, n its not that he wanted to rack up a huge enough deficit to force americans to have to pay more but..
If someone didnt do it, who would? if he didnt put his foot in n take the casualities now to prevent further attacks, it would be a redudant cycles of attacks leading to further deaths not just on soldier but more on civilian casualities in key states..
Obviousley there are two sides to a story, but if America was more prepared to attacks through the urgencies pushed forth earlier on and chose to ignore it hoping it wouldnt happen again, its the mistake of the earlier goverment, not the current president for causing the lives..
There is blame on both sides, but you gotta be realistic n realize that puttin a goverment that can be run properly is what you need to do..
Whenever your in a lead position like that, you arnt there to please the minority of people against war, the majority of people for standardizing iraq (Polls clearly show bush polls increasing for security) your there to make sure your there to save your people, even Kerry his democratic opponent knows Bush's Key re-rellection key is National security, no one is gonna overlook it again n things need to get done quick or else other deaths are gonna be lost..
Look at it from both standpoints, holla back peace..