Poll: Do you support the War in Afghanistan?

[Beau]

Not a flame thread!!! Just pure and simple, yes or no, DO YOU SUPPORT IT?

The objectives I am speaking about are the actions in general. No specifics. This is simply a yes or no on the actions that are currently happening.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Is that "NO" vote yours, Czar?

 

[Beau]

No flaming. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is just to put where ATOTer's stand into perspective.

 

[Lankin]

Yes. I also would fully support wars against Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Lebanon.

 

[UltraQuiet]

2 "no" votes. Looks like we've heard from Czar and Osama Bin Laden.

 

[Zwingle]

Kind of misleading....I support getting the Taliban out of power and installing a citizen friendly gov't. But that is as far as it goes. State the objectives of the war you are talking about.

I guess my name is Osama cause I voted no

My vote is a yes....but only for the reasons stated above....so subtract one no vote.

 

[Beau]

Well, Osama ,
The objectives I am speaking about are the actions in general. No specifics. This is simply a yes or no on the actions that are currently happening.

 

[Czar]

I havent even voted and belive it or not I am going to vote for yes, I just do not support how the war is being fought.

edit.
ShotgunSteve and DaveSohmer, he said no flames... so .. do you want a flame war? if not then shut the hell up

 

[Beau]

Shocking, CZar, but I can see your point.

Again, this is not a flame war. This is a simple question that does not need explaining. There are other threads for that.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

<< I havent even voted and belive it or not I am going to vote for yes, I just do not support how the war is being fought.

edit.
ShotgunSteve and DaveSohmer, he said no flames... so .. do you want a flame war? if not then shut the hell up >>



I did not flame, I asked a question. I asked if it was your vote. Since you decided to flame first, fvck you, dipsh!t.

 

[Beau]

<<

<< I havent even voted and belive it or not I am going to vote for yes, I just do not support how the war is being fought. edit. ShotgunSteve and DaveSohmer, he said no flames... so .. do you want a flame war? if not then shut the hell up >>

I did not flame, I asked a question. I asked if it was your vote. Since you decided to flame first, fvck you, dipsh!t. >>

Let's at least try to keep it civil. While I don't agree (at least for the most part) with CZar's, DWingle's, and Eledan's opinions, they do have the right to their own, and the right to express it. Let's not forget the difference between being Patriotic, standing up for what your rights, and being totalitarian, force opinions and control upon others. They have at least expressed their opinions non-hostilely, unlike the common "STFU asshole!" that is so freely expressed by people who cannot come up with a more thought out reply.

 

[Czar]

well said Beau6183
and thank you

 

[burnedout]

Of course I voted yes. There exists no other plausible, logical answer.

I don't support killing Afghan civilians. However, the people (read: SOBs) responsible for the attack on our country used (past tense) Afghanistan as a base of operations. The capture or destruction of Al-Qeada, and the supporting regime, is paramount in regards to the survival of our nation. To allow those responsible for the attacks of September 11th any other option remains non-negotiable, in my opinion.

 

[Beau]

BTTT for more votes

 

[Priit]

I don't support any kind of war....

 

[thebubala]

I know, no flame war, but to put it simple - If you don't believe in defending the US, get the hell out of my country

 

[Beau]

<< I know, no flame war, but to put it simple - If you don't believe in defending the US, get the hell out of my country >>

It's not about defending the country, it's about the <U>method</U> that we are currently pursuing. There are alternative actions to what we are doing, but that's a different topic.

 

100%, and then some.

 

[spaceman]

i support it 110%
sames goes for other nations supporting terrorism.
this is a problem that has needed to be addressed for a long long time.

 

[Elledan]

I voted no.

IMHO, violence should be used only if other solutions fail, or to keep a situation from escalating.

 

[Beau]

<< I voted no. IMHO, violence should be used only if other solutions fail, or to keep a situation from escalating. >>

Saw that coming
I agree FTMP, but I support the actions that are currently happening.

 

[jjones]

i voted yes because other solutions have failed and i'd like the situation to keep from escalating

 

[Elledan]

<< i voted yes because other solutions have failed and i'd like the situation to keep from escalating >>


No serious attempts have been made to come to a non-violent solution and there was no danger of escalation.

Is violence really the only way of communication with foreign countries the US is capable of? I just don't understand why the US appears to be so eager to get itself burned.

 

[Beau]

<<

<< i voted yes because other solutions have failed and i'd like the situation to keep from escalating >>

No serious attempts have been made to come to a non-violent solution and there was no danger of escalation. Is violence really the only way of communication with foreign countries the US is capable of? I just don't understand why the US appears to be so eager to get itself burned. >>

Wrong, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have tried to negotiate the handover of Bin Laden prior to these attacks. Bush provided time for afghanistan (Taliban) to hand over Bin Laden to avoid this action. Anyway... we're getting off topic.... just asking a y/n question here

 

[Texmaster]

<< I voted no.

IMHO, violence should be used only if other solutions fail, or to keep a situation from escalating. >>



Yet you still have not given one real alternative solution to what America faced.

And you still have not managed to grasp that not everyone thinks like a Westerner about negotiation and peace.

Might is what most understand in the middle east and you would have the US sit on its hands even when its a sure sign of weakness to the people that carried out the attacks inviting more to follow.