Debate and Discussion

Would you defend your country
PhatScurl at 6:55AM, July 12, 2006
(offline)
posts: 391
joined: 4-22-2006
I don't care what country your from, im just curious. In the event you were drafted or were needed for your military, would you willingly pick up a gun and run full charge at your opposers. Are you ready to kill and be killed for the country you live in? Don't answer unless your completely sure.

I from America, and i feel that i am one of the few people who knows, how good i have it. I am in my schools JROTC program, and enjoy it a lot. I love my country with all my heart, and i will do almost anything to protect it. I intend on dying a proud american whether it be from a bullet or age
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:43PM
Ronson at 7:30AM, July 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
If we were attacked by a foreign army? Probably. I would defend my family, my property and my rights.

Assuming the enemy was trying to take any of those things away, I would fight.

Of course, by that definition, the current administration is actually working against the the things I hold dear (like my civil rights and private property).

Contrariwise, if Canada were attacking, I think I might actually come out ahead. ;)

______

But I don't think I'd get involved in the war for oil. I don't think I'd be willing to go to the other side of the world to kill people who had no ability or intention of doing anything to us.

Patriotism is great, Phatscurl. Just make sure that your love of country doesn't blind you to the motivations of some in the government. Always understand the reason for fighting and don't fight blindly.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Chelano at 8:23AM, July 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 620
joined: 4-14-2006
I hate war…..and I hate killing. I wouldn't be able to do it. Yet if I was in a situation where if I didn't fight …my loved ones or myself may die…..I guess I might. But I would try so hard to get out of it.

It is just so easy to get along….but no one can
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
Comicmasta at 8:27AM, July 12, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,338
joined: 6-4-2006
Yeahhh!!!! id pick up a gun and start shooting!, i don't want my country (which allows me to smoke anything i want, no legal drinking age, and allows people to be driving drunk and not be arresed) to change! Id pick up a fire arm and shoot people till I die, though i may be half drunk when i do it and accidently shoot people on my side.
i have been brought back….The Boanitia..grrrrr…..Must find Super Jesus!!!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:43AM
AQua_ng at 10:58AM, July 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 7,830
joined: 4-6-2006
I'm more of a strategist than a get-up-and-shoot fighter. I'd probably find myself stunning the foe instead of hacking them to little tiny bits. In fact, I'll just be directing orders or go ‘outside the box’ in the military i.e. technician, medical help, stand up entertainment act.

K.A.L.A-dan! Brigade Captain :D
K.A.L.A.-dan forums!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:54AM
Ronson at 6:02AM, July 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
And the french won only the wars they were with some other country(A strong country…)…

Yes. Thank goodness Napoleon accomplished nothing.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
chezz at 6:43AM, July 13, 2006
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 1-9-2006
Id probably do my best to defend my country but I really dont like to kill people id probably contribute my service in others ways than fighting
check out my new comic at http://www.drunkduck.com/Damned_Zan/
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:41AM
PhatScurl at 7:04AM, July 13, 2006
(offline)
posts: 391
joined: 4-22-2006
Ronson
And the french won only the wars they were with some other country(A strong country…)…

No there was one war they won with out assistance, The French Revolution :-D

===========================================
Note: Im not saying “grab a gun and just start shooting” when i say defend your country. Im asking if you were needed or asked to, would you join the military, take orders from a higher officer, and otherwise kill or be killed for your country?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:43PM
kyupol at 7:17AM, July 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
If it was a just war or if it was a resistance movement against foreign occupiers.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:24PM
Mimarin at 7:47AM, July 13, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,107
joined: 1-7-2006
Note: as it currently stands America will never face a foreign occupying force, more likley would be a civil war against a totalitarian government, which would probably be described as “terrorism”
Of course you will. All intelligent beings dream. Nobody knows why.

Also, tell random people they are awsome! it helps!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:02PM
Ronson at 7:55AM, July 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Good point, Mimarin.

When the question comes to defending your country, what is really referred to here?

If you're talking about defending it from internal and external forces, we've all done a pretty poor job from defending from corruption from within.

Especially since we could have defended ourselves by being better informed before going to the voting booth. And if the trend continues, it will only get worse.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
kyupol at 8:50AM, July 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Mimarin
Note: as it currently stands America will never face a foreign occupying force, more likley would be a civil war against a totalitarian government, which would probably be described as “terrorism”


So… brace yourself for the 2nd American civil war?!?
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:24PM
Mimarin at 8:54AM, July 13, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,107
joined: 1-7-2006
It really wouldn't supprise me, the immense removal of freedoms and liberties in the US combined with the near theogratical government would certainly be enough to set off less stable governments, and civil wars have started over less.
Of course you will. All intelligent beings dream. Nobody knows why.

Also, tell random people they are awsome! it helps!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:02PM
kyupol at 9:03AM, July 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Mimarin
It really wouldn't supprise me, the immense removal of freedoms and liberties in the US combined with the near theogratical government would certainly be enough to set off less stable governments, and civil wars have started over less.


Prelude to Fascism…

Once you see large banners with a somewhat equilateral and edged logo on them… and soldiers wearing an armband on their shoulder bearing the same logo…

That is the start of a fascist state. More and more Americans will try to enter Canada or Mexico legally or illegally.


Or is this just speculation that has less than 10% chance of happening?
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:24PM
Ronson at 9:21AM, July 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Hard to say. Fascism is something that happens almost too slowly to be noticed until it's too late. I will say that the foundations for fascism have been planted and all efforts to thwart it so far have been mostly unsuccessful.

If you doubt that, find out the definition of a “terrorist” in the PATRIOT act:

‘domestic terrorism’ means activities… involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

That seems almost reasonable, until they start to redefine what “dangerous to human life” and increase what is considered a “violation of criminal law”. How dangerous is dangerous? What's considered “intimidation” or “coercion” of the government?

Right now, we can look at the PATRIOT Act and say “well, that's not so bad.” But it's a step.

But since then, we have:

- detained citizens without a lawyer or trial.
- exempted prisoners from the Geneva Conventions
- tortured prisoners.
- reditioned prisoners to torture-friendly nations.
- wire tapped phones without warrants.
- monitored libraries and bookstores for who was reading what.

…and the list goes on. And that's just the stuff we know. Soon we'll all need National ID cards with RFID chips in them. 2008, I believe.

So, when will it stop? I don't know. When the fear goes away. I can't for the life of me figure out what we're all so scared of. Terrorists might succeed on occasion, but we're doing a number on our freedoms all by ourselves.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Aurora Moon at 12:08AM, July 16, 2006
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
equinox
I am a pacifist. I absolutely hate having to hurt people, even though I have done so in the past. And it's hard being proud of america anymore with what Bush has done to the country.

So my answer is no, I'd prolly jump border up into Canada.

same here.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
Radmetalmonk at 6:44AM, July 16, 2006
(online)
posts: 47
joined: 1-4-2006
america? Nope, any country that would station missiles in turkey during the cold war, then make the soviet union look like the enemy during the cuban missile crisis will not have my help.

Really, I think wars shouldn't be fought with weapons. Rather barehanded. Everyone just punching and kicking and shit. Less casualties, less damage, less cost, ect.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:59PM
PhatScurl at 10:30AM, July 16, 2006
(offline)
posts: 391
joined: 4-22-2006
I understand what you are trying to say. I know Iraq was in a bad way with Saddam and Friends, but was it really OUR business to bail their asses out? We stuck our noses where they didnt belong. They didnt ASK for our help.

It was the iraqi people's responsibility to rise up and overthrow saddam. Sure, helping get him out of office was fine, but you cannot just FORCE democracy on the people, they have to WANT it and make it for themselves.

You didn't see France over here in the US after the revolution telling us how to make our government. If we could make a government after a revolution, so can the iraqi people.

Let them make their government, and bring our people home before bush has to explain to the american people that he started WWIII.

Excuse me, but my asshole side must say something about this statement, and here it is: Above you can see a quote by someone who just made themselves appear to have 1 brain cell for every foot they stand.

1. Was it our responsibility? No, no it wasn't, but it was a nice thing to do. According to what your saying, we shouldn't be trying to help people in 3rd world countries right now because, they're not our responsibility.

(edit): Have you people forgotten that Saddam was supplying weapons to terrorists. If I was the President, i would have gotten soldiers over their a lot sooner.

2. Forcing Democracy on them? DO YOU EVEN WATCH THE NEWS! We're not forcing anything on them, all we're trying to get is an actual non-dictated government started over there, because when we got rid of one government, its a pretty good idea to get another one up as fast as possible. We are advising them in getting a temporary government started so they so breathing room before they get started on a full service one.

3. STOP BUSH-BASHING. With all the shit the guy has gone through in the last 8 years the last thing i bet he wants is a bunch of ignorant people telling him he's the worst president to ever take the office.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:43PM
Ronson at 1:53PM, July 16, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
PhatScurl
I understand what you are trying to say. I know Iraq was in a bad way with Saddam and Friends, but was it really OUR business to bail their asses out? We stuck our noses where they didnt belong. They didnt ASK for our help.

It was the iraqi people's responsibility to rise up and overthrow saddam. Sure, helping get him out of office was fine, but you cannot just FORCE democracy on the people, they have to WANT it and make it for themselves.

You didn't see France over here in the US after the revolution telling us how to make our government. If we could make a government after a revolution, so can the iraqi people.

Let them make their government, and bring our people home before bush has to explain to the american people that he started WWIII.

Excuse me, but my asshole side must say something about this statement, and here it is: Above you can see a quote by someone who just made themselves appear to have 1 brain cell for every foot they stand.

1. Was it our responsibility? No, no it wasn't, but it was a nice thing to do. According to what your saying, we shouldn't be trying to help people in 3rd world countries right now because, they're not our responsibility.

Actually, let me point out that WE put Saddam in power in the first place. So the arguement that it wasn't our business is, I'm afraid, moot.

But if you can explain how blowing people up helps “3rd world countries”, I'm all ears.

Have you people forgotten that Saddam was supplying weapons to terrorists. If I was the President, i would have gotten soldiers over their a lot sooner.

No, he wasn't supplying weapons. At least he wasn't when we went to war. He was contained. The most people could say is that he might become a danger in a decade.


2. Forcing Democracy on them? DO YOU EVEN WATCH THE NEWS! We're not forcing anything on them, all we're trying to get is an actual non-dictated government started over there, because when we got rid of one government, its a pretty good idea to get another one up as fast as possible. We are advising them in getting a temporary government started so they so breathing room before they get started on a full service one.

We destroyed their government, bombed the crap out of them and then took some pretty restrictive steps to get them to create a democratic system that we approve of. It will more than likely fail in about 20 years, but for now we can pretend we didn't just create another monster.

3. STOP BUSH-BASHING. With all the shit the guy has gone through in the last 8 years the last thing i bet he wants is a bunch of ignorant people telling him he's the worst president to ever take the office.

Like he listens to the people. Ever.

Bush “bashing” would be to make fun of his accent, his lack of intelligence or his family. To point out policy decisions he made that have screwed up our country for years to come is, I think, a valid basis for debate.

Name one good thing he's done. One.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ccs1989 at 1:59PM, July 16, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
kYuPoL
Mimarin
It really wouldn't supprise me, the immense removal of freedoms and liberties in the US combined with the near theogratical government would certainly be enough to set off less stable governments, and civil wars have started over less.


Prelude to Fascism…

Once you see large banners with a somewhat equilateral and edged logo on them… and soldiers wearing an armband on their shoulder bearing the same logo…


Only in our case that logo will be the cross, and the evangelical christians will be the soldiers.

But seriously, those people scare me.

Some Evangelical
“I appreciate the fact that the church is politically involved,” said Kyle Hatfield, a 30-year-old father of two who believes the separation of church and state has gone too far.

“It was not our forefathers' intention to prevent churches from being involved,” he said. “Our forefathers did not want to force people to belong to a church, but that has been tweaked to mean churches cannot be involved.”

Kill me now.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
PhatScurl at 2:22PM, July 16, 2006
(offline)
posts: 391
joined: 4-22-2006
Ronson
Name one good thing he's done. One.

okey dokey! I actually can name 2 ooooohhhhh!

1.he has brought 10s of thousands of jobs back to the states.

2. He finished the job his father started in Iraq, a job that should've been finished a long time ago before Saddam got his ass in there and ordered for the mass murder of THOUSANDS people in his country.

If there is anyone who is at blame its probably Bush Sr.

You guys almost make it sound like Saddam is the victim in this whole thing.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:43PM
Ronson at 3:44PM, July 16, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
PhatScurl
Ronson
Name one good thing he's done. One.

okey dokey! I actually can name 2 ooooohhhhh!

1.he has brought 10s of thousands of jobs back to the states.

Back that up please. As far as I know, under his watch, thousands of well paying jobs have disappeared, only to be replaced with thousands of poor paying jobs. But if you have valid studies to show, I'll look at them.

2. He finished the job his father started in Iraq, a job that should've been finished a long time ago before Saddam got his ass in there and ordered for the mass murder of THOUSANDS people in his country.

Yes, with weapons we supplied and with actions condoned by Reagan. Do you even know any history?

And if the job is "finished', why are 80 bodies a day piling up in the Baghdad morgue? Exactly what job was Bush W. doing that he finished? And why is the Taliban gaining power in Afghanistan? Wasn't that a job he was supposed to finish?

If there is anyone who is at blame its probably Bush Sr.

You guys almost make it sound like Saddam is the victim in this whole thing.

Not at all. Saddam was put in place by the US and then became a bad boy when he tried to take over oil fields in Kuwait. So we slapped him down and kept him powerless until we needed a straw man to blame 9/11 on. Then we doctored evidence to make him seem like an “imminent threat” and because the media is corporate controlled and lazy, and United States Citizens are generally ignorant, Bush got the war he campaigned for in 1999.

You don't believe that, I know. I would imagine that you've done absolutely no research into the events of the past six years. You don't know what has been done to our rights, why we're really fighting in Iraq and what the “big picture” is.

I know you won't listen. I know you essentially don't even care. I know you will only come back at me with talking points backed up with little or no factual basis. There are truths out there you are blinding yourself to. I have to assume it's on purpose.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
PhatScurl at 4:19PM, July 16, 2006
(offline)
posts: 391
joined: 4-22-2006
Ronson
PhatScurl
Ronson
Name one good thing he's done. One.

okey dokey! I actually can name 2 ooooohhhhh!

1.he has brought 10s of thousands of jobs back to the states.

Back that up please. As far as I know, under his watch, thousands of well paying jobs have disappeared, only to be replaced with thousands of poor paying jobs. But if you have valid studies to show, I'll look at them.

2. He finished the job his father started in Iraq, a job that should've been finished a long time ago before Saddam got his ass in there and ordered for the mass murder of THOUSANDS people in his country.

Yes, with weapons we supplied and with actions condoned by Reagan. Do you even know any history?

And if the job is "finished', why are 80 bodies a day piling up in the Baghdad morgue? Exactly what job was Bush W. doing that he finished? And why is the Taliban gaining power in Afghanistan? Wasn't that a job he was supposed to finish?

If there is anyone who is at blame its probably Bush Sr.

You guys almost make it sound like Saddam is the victim in this whole thing.

Not at all. Saddam was put in place by the US and then became a bad boy when he tried to take over oil fields in Kuwait. So we slapped him down and kept him powerless until we needed a straw man to blame 9/11 on. Then we doctored evidence to make him seem like an “imminent threat” and because the media is corporate controlled and lazy, and United States Citizens are generally ignorant, Bush got the war he campaigned for in 1999.

You don't believe that, I know. I would imagine that you've done absolutely no research into the events of the past six years. You don't know what has been done to our rights, why we're really fighting in Iraq and what the “big picture” is.

I know you won't listen. I know you essentially don't even care. I know you will only come back at me with talking points backed up with little or no factual basis. There are truths out there you are blinding yourself to. I have to assume it's on purpose.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't assume things about me that your not sure of, awrighty. If i wasn't listening to your argument, you can be assured i wouldn't be arguing this so profoundly.I try to keep myself as well informed as possible, a lot of politics don't make sense to me, but i can assure you i understand it better than most people my age. Here's what i do understand:

1. We have removed from office a man who ordered the death of thousands. A man who gained power without the assistance of George W. Bush.

2. The majority of the rights violated, such as tapping phone calls, were not being done with the Presidents knowledge. (some of the tapes dating back before his presidency) The one's that were violated with his knowledge, were to protect another 3000 people or more from being killed by maniac suicide bombers.

3. Honestly, i don't think most of you are aware of the fact that there are other parts of the government, other than the president. The guy doesn't have ultimate power over everybody, nor does he think he does

4. We have quickly assembled a government, not a stable one but one that'll stop the people from thinking that they can take whatever they want, which they appeared to think that they could for awhile.

5. George W. Bush is not the greatest president on the planet. He has made his share of mistakes just like anyother president, and in 2 years another president will take his place and you guys can yell at him for every mistake he makes as if it was the end of the world.

Im pretty much tired of arguing in Bush's defense. So im gonna move onto something that holds my interest a little more
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:43PM
Ronson at 6:54PM, July 16, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Listen, I don't care. Love the man all you want.

But it's all lies and you've shown nothing to disprove anything. You've just repeated right wing talking points that are not true, just repeated. And all of the right wing talking points have a grain of truth.

1. We have removed from office a man who ordered the death of thousands. A man who gained power without the assistance of George W. Bush.

Yes, Saddam gassed people in the northern areas of his country. He used weapons we sold him and then we sent representatives over there to congratulate him on a job well done. BUT, Saddam didn't consider the people he gassed to be “his people”, he considered them to be his enemy.

You don't know the facts of the matter. You don't know who those people were, why Saddam gassed them or what our reaction to the event at the time was.

It doesn't make it right, but the same people who cheered Saddam on then are the same people who are telling you how horrible it is today. Doesn't that make you stop to think even a little?

That's how you are manipulated. Research this event that bothers you so. Find out everything you can about it and then argue like an intelligent person about it.

________

2. The majority of the rights violated, such as tapping phone calls, were not being done with the Presidents knowledge. (some of the tapes dating back before his presidency) The one's that were violated with his knowledge, were to protect another 3000 people or more from being killed by maniac suicide bombers.

The NSA Warrentless Wiretapping was enacted before 9/11, but after Bush became president. And he ordered it.

Clinton had expanded the wiretapping program, but at that time it still required a warrant either before or 72 hours after the tap occured.

There is no evidence that any of this wiretapping yielded any usable results.

If the wiretapping program was expanded prior to 9/11, then why didn't they get wind of it sooner? The answer is that they did, but that the FBI/CIA/White House communications lines were not working properly. I can't say that's Bush's fault, but it's the truth.

So while you gave up that right to privacy in the name of safety, just understand it didn't make anyone safer.
_____

3. Honestly, i don't think most of you are aware of the fact that there are other parts of the government, other than the president. The guy doesn't have ultimate power over everybody, nor does he think he does

And while you say that, do you realize that congress and the senate have been nothing but a rubber stamp for Bush? With very little exception, they have altered laws to legalize Bush's overstepping time and time again.

And what about the Supreme Court? Well, the same people who share your views scream about “activist” judges and the tyranny of the Supreme Court. Fortunately, Bush has been able to replace 2 members with decidedly more right wing members, and he has his eyes on a third. Can you name the two new ones and tell me what cases they were involved in just prior to their appointment?

4. We have quickly assembled a government, not a stable one but one that'll stop the people from thinking that they can take whatever they want, which they appeared to think that they could for awhile.

Do you know how many of these government leaders have been assassinated? Did you know that they rule the area of Iraq called “The Green Zone” and little else? Did you know that sectarian armies are forming all over Iraq because this government is powerless to defend these towns?

5. George W. Bush is not the greatest president on the planet. He has made his share of mistakes just like anyother president, and in 2 years another president will take his place and you guys can yell at him for every mistake he makes as if it was the end of the world.

And I'm sure if the next one is Republican you'll be his biggest fanboy, and if he's Democrat you'll be sure to spread right wing lies about him.

I, on the other hand, hope to point out the errors of whomever succeeds the president. Regardless of party. But that's because I'm willing to investigate stuff before believing it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
akakios at 7:50PM, July 16, 2006
(offline)
posts: 26
joined: 3-20-2006
To tell you the truth…no. I wouldn't. I'm a fuckin' pussy when it comes to that stuff. I would probably only do it if I really had nothing to live for.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:48AM
Priceman at 12:51PM, Dec. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 521
joined: 11-2-2006
As a current member of the United States armed forces, i'm proud to say yes!

The country may slowly be going to hell in a handbasket, but if you can't defend your home then what can you defend?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
subcultured at 10:31PM, Dec. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
I would defend my country (America), but i probably would not fight for my country (in iraq)
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:00PM
Juliechan at 11:13PM, Dec. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 51
joined: 10-24-2006

Probably not. I don't believe in war, I don't think it solves anything. I don't agree with my governments courses of action…make that ACTIONS.

I know a lot of people that probably think that's bad and that I'm a loser for not wanting to defend my own country, but I refuse to fight for a country I'm not proud of, and for a cause I think could be delt with diffrently and/or for a cause that I don't think is worth fighting.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:11PM
mapaghimagsik at 11:22PM, Dec. 22, 2006
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Okay, to answer the first question, Yes, if my country was invaded, I would fight to repel any invader. Mind you, when I think about the ideals of my country, I think about the Constitution of the United States of America, and the ideals from which that document was born. At the same time, there are things that I treasure more than our country or its constitution. If my country crosses those lines – I won't take up arms to defend a dictatorship.

So this topic is a bit of a joke because we never really define what we mean by our country. Our system of government? Or land?

I find it funny that these people who “love” their country think the only sacrifice is taking up arms and “defending it.” How many of these “I'll take up arms people are just people who want a reason to kill?”

I have to ask these very same people who are willing to go out and take up arms, if they are willing to do the following to protect their country:

1) Pay more taxes.
2) Really defend equality by letting homosexuals have the same rights and benefits that heterosexuals have in terms of marriage
3) Take public transportation
4) Register their firearm.

So I'll ask this hypothetical. If those things were proven to unequivocably make America Stronger, would you do it? I can hear the weaseling already.

How about if there was tremendous long term strategic advantage to the US in dumping the debacle that was the Iraq war and bringing the troops home and re-equipping our army?

How about if loving your country meant not abandoning our soldiers after they come home so that so many of them don't become homeless?





last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Priceman at 2:39AM, Dec. 23, 2006
(online)
posts: 521
joined: 11-2-2006
Excellent points mapaghimagsik. I didn't think that the question could have that many dimensions, but you pointed them out. Really made me think there.

And you answer your questions:

1)yes
2)yes
3)yes
4)yes
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved