For the war or against it?
138511
I am for the war and I am U.S. citizen.  I have been 100% behind it from the beginning.  Also, we never went into this for the oil.  Do people not watch the news?  Oil prices have been insane.  If we are taking all this oil, then why are we having to pay so much for it?
1106266
Well hopefully your General has your interests at heart.  As George Patton said "War is not about dyin for your country.  War is about making some other poor son of a bitch die for his country."  (well something like that.)
765165
A respectful question deserves a respectful answer.\n\nCongress (not the President alone) should declare war when another country poses a *clear* threat to the U.S. through direct provocation.  There are also times when the U.S. can come to the aid of an ally when it is directly attacked, but these times are limited to when the U.S. cannot assist the ally in other ways.\n\nSo responding to 9/11 with an attack on Afghanistan *was* justfied, because they specifically harbored the perpetrators of an act of war on the U.S. (Al Qaeda).\n\nAnd attacking Saddam when he went outside his borders and attacked Kuwait, was also arguably justified as a defense of an ally.  I.e. an international breach is occasion for the U.S. to consider involving itself (I'm not as much in agreement with this stance as other people ... but I understand the argument).\n\nWhat is indefensible is attacking a country, like we did Iraq, when (1) that country was specifically trying to stay out of our way, (2) there was no proof of direct threat against the United States (either the weapons, or the way to deliver them), and (3) Saddam was not crossing outside his borders.\n\nIt is counterproductive to attack another country without provocation, because it undermines the message "if you mess with the U.S., you will get hammered" by sending the message "even if you *don't* mess with the U.S., you will get hammered" ... i.e. it sends the message, "what you do doesn't matter anyway ... so you should attack us whenever you get the chance."\n\nWhat would I have done differently?  Stay the course ... in *Afghanistan* until Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was captured or dead ... and then withdraw, but give strong financial and weapons support to the replacement government.  That would have sent the clear message ... "our only beef is with Al Qaeda."  Not only would the world (including the Arab world) understand our reasons, but they would have continued to support us in this (as they did during the Afghanistan invasion).  Instead, declaring a "war on terror" was a terrible idea ... as it sent the message to the world "we don't really know *who* we're fighting ... so it could be YOU."  So it simultaneously narrowed the definitions of who our allies are, while broadening the definition of who our enemies are.\n\nThere is a reason the founders put *Congress* in charge of declaring war ... because an act of war has to be an act of a nation *against another nation*.  Congress can't declare a "war on terror", because it can't identify the nation it is at war with.\n\nAs far as Iraq, the weapons inspections turned out to be working just fine ... the reason they couldn't find any WMDs is *because there weren't any*.  Saddam was a paper tiger as far as threatening the rest of the region outside Iraq ... but *Iran* didn't know that.  So Saddam was keeping  islamic militants in check.
220281
Bloodshed is wrong.\n\nKilling innocent people is wrong, even if it's in war.\n\nWhere does this leave us?\n\nNo where good.\n\nThis war is EVIL.
1144805
As simple as it sounds, this seems to be a loaded question because it could be interpreted in several different ways.   \n\nIf the question was, "Do you support our troops in Iraq?", my answer would be; absolutely, yes. If the question was "Would you have supported our war in Iraq before it was begun?", my answer would have to be no.  If the question was, "Do you support funding wars with taxpayer's money in which the primary mission is either to  A. oust a dictator  or  B. spread democracy?", I would feel pressed to say no.  There are homeland concerns that, I feel, need to be addressed first before we open ourselves to this type of international involvement.\n\nI support handing the situation in Iraq over to the newly formed government, so that we may consider there to be an END to our war in Iraq.
806464
Okay! I did not , honestly look at anything you had to say after your first response...War is not best solution..etc..we are all animals that is what we do ...we {most do not like it} but that is what we, in reality do. I hate it..so many lives lost. but only so many of us can stop it or do something about it.. L
833491
Why are people opposed?\n\nBecause they think we're losing.  If we were winning, or at least not the steady stream of bad new (much of it bogus) then they'd be all for the war.\n\nThe "enemy" has been very skillful in their use of PR in this war, as skillful as the North Vietnamese were in the 1960's and 1970's.  The response from our side has been predictable, with the same people responding in the same way as they did before.
184957
yes,just, show respect. i respect the people for going out there and protecting their country and their beliefs. i myself hate war and wish we could find more peaceful resolutions to all the problems we have managed to get into, but that wish is unrealistic and those people that go out there and fight have came to that conclusion too and are doing something about it.\n\nand if that is still too close to supporting war, then think of each individual person and dont think of them as a soldier. support them for being brave, independent and strong and not for fighting.
763547
A decision to go to war is not about ethics, it is about your interests and what is best for your country.  Can the number killed be justified by the end result.  This is very similar to business, the nicest person is usually not the best business person.  "It is not personal it is just business."  "War is not about ethics, it is about business."
1075770
I think its neither. Its a "War for oil" or War for wealth.
866627
Depends on what it's for.  My Husband or Son NOPE, I'd go out Fighting for those 2 but anything else pretty much yes
1083794
Against any war..against anything that causes victims..
1146824
As a former Marine when young men and woman enlist or take a commission we are ALL obligate to care out the order given to us.  As far as the war NO war is ever good.  People will die.  I was always taught no matter what the cost stand up for what you believe in even if that means standing alone.  So is it worth it, that's up to each person to decide.
1176064
It's true, it's DAMN true. You can fight for peace, but only if there is no peace to begin with. If they were fighting in Danfur to get rid of the Janjaweed, then I'd think to consider it fighting for peace. But this war, I don't agree with.\n\nEDIT:\nIt's a shame that so many people (including Turbowedgie) want to compare this to the Great War. Let's use realistic lingo, such as "Don't you think we would have won Nam if it hadn't been for those un-American jackasses that wanted us out? What's another life or two? Just keep on napalmin' and they'd surrender, eventually."
1114800
I think most people want peace, but a few people are able to convince folks, once in a while, that war is preferable for one reason or another.  And yeah, some things are worth fighting for, and some things are worth dying for, but not nearly as many as some people seem to think.\n\nI think peace is coming back into vogue, now that we are once again learning about the cost of war.  Though it may be a while before we can have peace, because it's a much easier thing to break than it is to build.
775804
I think we should do what that general suggests.  There has never been a war, in which a force that went and lived up to laws of morality, and the other side did not, and the first force, winning.  Sometimes, you just have to be cruel to win.  I think what this general says is a great idea (I know it sounds kind of sick)  Just kill the people that decide to ruin other's lives, I see no wrong in that.
176108
The main reson to oppose WWI...\nIt's over.\n\nReally, specify which side your interested in...\n\nThe whole war or just US involvement, etc?