Quote:
|
Originally Posted by K-Wise
I'm not arguing with anyone I just wondered if you guys could give me some facts to develop my opinion on. They keep bashing Bush saying that we lost 1000 soldiers...that really sux but I just wanna know how much of the enemy was defeated as well. Then I could know if it was really as pointless as people have made it out to be. So many people hate him for that. I can't say that if I had a love one lost there I wouldn't either. I'm trying to be open minded though. Trying to get every angle and see if maybe there was more good or progress than people would like to give him credit for or not.
Asta!!
|
Well it's not really right to base a millitary campaign on how many people you killed in comparison to how many you lost. You weigh it based upon objectives accomplished. You base it upon the quickness of the acheivements. As of this point we've won half the war. The second half we have not. People say it's pointless not because we haven't killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers they say it's pointless because we did not HAVE to be there at this time. We did not HAVE to be doing what we are doing. Despite the fact an evil evil man has been deposed one has to ask do the ends justify the means? Some say yes many say no.
I voted for Bush in 2000. I firmly felt Gore was no better(and honestly he probably wasn't) and I felt Bush should be given a shot. I will not be voting for bush in 04. While for the most part I don't totally disagree with his policies but the war has ensured I can't in good conscious vote for him again. I won't go as far as many are saying in that he lied to us willingly. I think he was a victim of bad intel and bad advice. But any mistake has to be answered for. But at the same time I don't think Kerry is the right guy for the job so thusly...write in time.