...or just someone who has a lot of money and supports Bush. Seriously, you over-analyze things. Analysis is not a bad thing, but you are scrutinizing everything so hard that you start to see things that aren't there.

In EVERY war people say "We need to support our president in this time of war." It is a true statement because the integrity of this country during wartime hinges on that support. You can oppose the war but support the President. I mean, do you really want us to "lose" the war? I doubt it; you just don't think it was the right thing to do. But here's the thing: you can't change the fact that it has happened. Support the President so that the war may be ended quickly, and then question him on the matter afterwards to try to prevent it in the future. Creating opposition during wartime merely lengthens the war. Hell, Vietnam probably would have been over in 1970 or 1971 if the nation weren't so divided. That would have saved two or three thousand American lives (probably more, because more lives were lost by holding the same pieces of ground than by assaulting into new territories).

If you raise hell about everything the President does during war, he's not going to be able to fully execute his strategy. Then you're fighting a limited war, which takes more time, money, and most importantly, lives in the long run. If you truly want the war to end, then support the war effort even if you disagree with the war in the first place. When the war is over, then you can criticize the president for going to war without being called a hippie, peacenik, or traitor. You will have more respect from your fellow countrymates because no one will feel that you are trying to undermine our country. People will see that you honestly support the nation and the principles for which it stands, and want to prevent us from making a similar mistake in the future.

dividing a country does not prolong a war. OPPOSITION does not prolong a war. that's another thing the media has programmed into peoples' minds. opposition to the war ends it faster, because people speak out against it.

It's so nice when you're gone for a couple days. Why don't you try it for a few months shithead. The sad part is I agree with you about some things, but the problem is you are not open to anything. You are calling us closed minded, while you refuse to accept anything that doesn't fit your agenda. The only thing you believe is the shit you read on these stupid conspericy sites. Pretty pathetic.

Oh yeah, and why do you sometimes say you shouldn't believe what you see on the news, but when it fits your motive, you use it as a source?

Too Exclusive's future...click here!!!!

please use one of the posted options and post which one you plan on using... Good Luck!!!

My two cents:

First, a matter of semantics. We are not currently at war, we are in the occupation/nation building stage in both Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Secondly, opposistion to this, "war" seems more politically motivated than from pure altruism. Every anti war statement thrown out by such orginizations as MOVEON.ORG and others have been invalidated. From the "No blood for oil," to the, "We're ignoring the members of the axis of evil." I mean honestly, look at it this way, both Afghanistan and Iraq share large borders with Iran. Maybe it's just me, but I do see some strategic significance to selecting these two nations. And as for the majority of Iraqi's wanting the US out immediately, I can speak from personal experience that I was well recieved, and in fact thanked by many shiia back in 03.
Lastly, the human toll of occupation. While any death is a tragedy, the fact remains that we are an all volunteer force, so when I raised my right hand to take the oath of enlistment I had a reasonable expectation to someday be placed in harms way. Since 3/19/2003, there have been 1,397 US casualties attributed to hostile action. Tragic yes, but a compelling reason to abandon the mission in Iraq it is not. In 2003 alone, there were 361 homicides reported in Detroit. And let us not forget US casualties along the Korean DMZ since the signing of the armistice.

No, that's something that history has proven. When people speak out against a war, it causes the administration to be more careful about what they do in war so as not to offend people. That leads to a limited war, which makes it last longer. Seriously, kid, study the Vietnam War, where the opposition was huge. It wasn't a coincidence that it was the only war we "lost big."

And yes, BulletCatcher is right. We are not at war (nor technically were we in Vietnam, but no matter). As he said, it is a semantics thing. But before you use that as an argument for why we should "divide the nation," consider that our troops are still there in a hostile environment. As long as the environment is hostile, they need all the support they can get. Support that only comes from a unified nation. Again, study the Vietnam War. Read memoirs from the soldiers and commanders. They really have no reason to lie.

ROFLMFAO
Here's another great resource:Helpful information