==Nit5u4== said:
You fucking make me sick you liberal scum. Bush might have been wrong about the WMD'S but even better and WAY more important is the fact that he LIBERATED EVERY FUCKING IRAQI AND INNOCENT KURD IN IRAQ AND YET STILL YOU LIBERALS WHINE ABOUT WMD'S, YOU PEOPLE ARE SICK.
|
Was the price worth it, though? Do you think that the death of between 11000 and 13000 people was worth it? Do you think that the deaths of the 1000 American soldiers freeing Iraq from something that, obviously they didn't seem to mind that much anyway, was worth it? Don't believe me? Look it up. Gallup polls, late-March or early-April.
Majority of Iraq would rather have Saddam than Bush. The statistics are all there, just not too wide-spread. Was it worth it? Would it be worth it if you lost a brother/father/mother/sister/son/daughter/uncle? Was it worth going to a war which most of the world and (don't know the exact numbers on this one) much of America didn't support, under a president that the majority of America didn't vote in? And when America did support the war, it was under the assumption that Iraq posed a major threat to us because of weapons of mass destruction? How would the real facts have swayed the public opinion of the war?
To me, it's not worth it. I'm not going to even attempt to sway your opinion, because I've learned that people are damned stubborn in what they believe, but if I was ever called to fight in this war, for whatever reason, you wouldn't find me there. If you offered me a position as general in this war, you wouldn't find me there. I sure as hell am not going to fight for something I don't believe in, and I refuse to vote for a president that is going to continue doing something where the negatives and losses heavily outweigh the positives, in my opinion.