I mean, really. Is there anyone in the room who feels more secure dealing with Saddam rather than dealing with Norh Korea who already has nuclear capacity? Really.
2006-06-24 10:51:27 · 20 answers · asked by Rod b 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
IRAQ in english OR IRAK in french
spelling is correct depending on your background
2006-06-24 10:58:49 · update #1
hahahaha Patriot defecen missile!! hahahaha you blind Americans :) Tell me how many scuds were shot down with Patriot missiles during the 1st Gulf war? bzzzz.. time is up : only one! ahahahah out of more than 40 attempts. This is what we call a secure system.
2006-06-24 11:00:58 · update #2
For the record. Although some lunatic may believe I am French. Sorry to burst their bubble but I am not. I know how to speak it. Désolé. :P
2006-06-24 12:59:42 · update #3
Of course they don't. Iraq has opened up a can a worms we really didn't need to open. The entire area will be destabilized for next the half a century.
2006-06-24 10:55:14 · answer #1 · answered by synchronicity915 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, I realize what a loose cannon is Commander in Chief and he couldn't even pass a flight physical, as ordered, because he couldn't pass a drug test.
Now he has started with Iraq and N Korea who is backed by China.
We want to shoot down a missile with a missile! Isn't that a little like punching a kid in the face and telling him it isn't OK to punch anyone?
Why can't M Korea fire a missile? We own the globe? And all the space that does not belong to us?
Next I guess we will be locking up all the Koreans who are American in Concentration camps!
The Raytheon Patriot missiles did turn out to be a multi billion dollar boondoggle!
2006-06-24 17:59:52 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
29% of Americans are still under the delusion that Iraq had something to do with the 9-11 attacks. Of course there are Americans who think we're more secure now that Saddam Hussein is out of the picture. They're simply kidding themselves by thinking they're safe.
So what was President George's reason for invading Iraq? I forgot.
2006-06-24 17:59:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a foreigner from up north of you, I feel much less secure because of the hornet's patch that's been stirred up in Iraq. Just take a look at Afghanistan. It was well under control and getting itself together. The came Iraq and now the Taliban are back in the picture because they were ignored and given time to regroup. Now we have plots, apparently, that are trying to topple Saudi Arabia. What.s next. I feel that Western military incompetence in the area has caused a lot of people to not fear western military any more
2006-06-24 18:05:14 · answer #4 · answered by gshewman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Americans can never REALLY feel secure again....to become too "relaxed" as a Nation would be to invite danger...(9/11)...even though the first terrorist attack occurred in 1993 (World Trade Center), we still got attacked (even worse in 2001). We were even vulnerable to a terrorist attack from "one of our own" (Oklahoma city). It has been almost 5 years to the day since 9/11...and still....are borders are NOT secure!!! There have already been plots unearthed in canada and in florida just this last month alone!
2006-06-24 18:00:35 · answer #5 · answered by Pie's_Guy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why did America attack Iraq? There wre no Iraquis on the planes of 9/11. There were plenty of Saudis. But Saudi Arabia is such a wonderful democracy I suppose it would be ammoral to overthrow it.
2006-06-24 21:24:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not feel more secure. I think that by invading Iraq, we fueled the terrorist movement and made terrorists out of people who otherwise wouldn't have been. Iran and N Korea are bigger threats and as far as I'm concerned, China is the scariest country out there.
2006-06-24 17:56:09 · answer #7 · answered by Report Abuse 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're not French? Could have fooled me. Anyway, having been to Iraq and seen firsthand the horrors Saddam inflicted on his own people, I certainly feel better about him being out of the picture.
2006-06-24 18:20:51 · answer #8 · answered by Incorrectly Political 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam wasn't a current threat. It was Al Quieda. North Korea is more of threat than Iraq. W's just finishing daddy's war.
2006-06-24 17:55:10 · answer #9 · answered by katie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As I learn that al queda, who had already attacked the United States twice, had already moved in to Iraq - the answer is yes - really - I feel better knowing that our government didn't take the bought off French version of capitulate until its too late.
2006-06-24 17:53:34 · answer #10 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ya because even if north Kora lanced a nuke at us we could shoot it up in the sky with our patriot missile system. Iraq and Afghanistan make sleeper-cells and bomb us from the inside. The Sears tower was saved from a terrorist attack just this week.
2006-06-24 17:55:08 · answer #11 · answered by snowboarder99300 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋