most would say if reasons present themself to invade a country, then you can invade it... but Republicans seem to take an opposite approach, find a country and then come up with enough eveidence to go in...
Iraq for example... no real links to 9-11 compared to other countries in the area.... but doggone it, we're going to come up with something... then the WMD, then the humanitarian efforts, now the links to terror...
next seems to be Iran... links to terror, nuclear program in early development possibly, crazy leader...
it's like a selling game... choose a country then "sell the war" to the people and U.N.... do they have a dart and a world map or something?
I mean, is Osama not a larger threat... he's already killed 3,000 in 9-11? or N. Korea... they already have nukes and are working on delivery methods? I mean the entire 9-11 report gives many more reasons to invade several countries than they ever come up with for Iraq and more than they are coming up with for Iran?
2006-09-15 18:55:09 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Paladin: I stand corrected... but there seems to be a vague idea of at least one thing... then they come up with others later... hahaha
2006-09-15 19:01:42 · update #1
jihad_aga... let's look at a few of the past few wars under dems and the reasons... that's what I'm really talking about, the motivation and the changing reasons...
somalia and kosovo... humanitarian efforts the whole time... no change of reasons...
Vietnam, Korea.... stop spread of communism... no real change of cause either...
but the reasons keep changing here... odd?
2006-09-15 19:11:35 · update #2
scubadive... guts without brains only emboldens the terrorists... if they hit you and then you strike a country that has nothing to do with them, then that's great for them... they can hit us all day and we're too stupid to hit them back... just ask Osama...
you talk about all the attacks since Carter and how many did Saddam do? ZERO(maybe gave them like a grand or something... very little relatively)... well it's a good thing we have the vast majority of our efforts focused there then?
I think I'm going to punch you in the head and watch you beat up the three year old that's walking down the street beside of me... it should be fun...
2006-09-15 19:29:12 · update #3
You come up with all that by yourself Flintstone?
2006-09-15 18:59:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
On the money - and spreading too thin. Doesnt seem to know when to stop. Just like a windup toy gone out of control.I always get the feeling that behind the scenes someone is still plotting and planning in secret - much like the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain. Not the business minded -technical America -and plan oriented iAmerica that we once knew. Oh where is Bill Clinton when we need him? (I dont care about a little piece on the side - the man clearly had the leadership skills).He wasnt the only one dipping - it goes back as far as Jefferson.
2006-09-15 21:27:53 · answer #2 · answered by worriedaboutyou 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
At least this administration has the wisdom, guts and ambition to recognize threats to this country and do something about them. Don't make me list all the attacks that took place in the 1990's (and even before with Carter) that went unanswered.
In fact Carters lack of spine is exactly what emboldened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to follow up his Tehran hostage crisis of 444 days with becoming the leader of the country. It could be said Jimmy Carter's passivity put us in the position we are in with Iran today.
2006-09-15 19:23:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its more Orwelllian I think. Lets have a forever-war to justify a police state that allows the top out-of-sight-rich to loot and plunder the middle class, rape the environment, and steal resources from developing nations while we are at it. We will call it the War on Terra . Dissent will be labeled treason, and the so-called leadership will have no accountability.
2006-09-15 21:08:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
God seems to tell them whilst ever they are noticeably constructive a) the rustic is carefully defenceless b) the county has no useful allies with nuclear purposes to look after it, and ultimately c) god seems to continually make constructive that the outcomes for commencing the war (in basic terms for those elite few that reality plan and invent the justifications) are a lot and lot of obscene salary for them. for all human beings else devastation perhaps god in basic terms likes prosperous white Republicans and Zionists?
2016-10-01 00:34:43 · answer #5 · answered by grumney 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i guess u r right ..Us People will hate me but i find it absurd and foolishness on bush's part that he keeps on blaming countries and invade them..**** he had no business in saddam's iraq he is juz a president of usa and shud stick to that only instead of being president of world
2006-09-15 19:04:06 · answer #6 · answered by lovesuckz@btinternet.com 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pretty much pick a country, invade it, and come up with several, non-continuous reasons to justify it and let the nutjobs defend them.
2006-09-15 19:42:21 · answer #7 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We should invade Mexico. Because George likes tacos.
2006-09-15 18:58:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the plan seems to be invade the country, then try to justify it to the people afterwards.
2006-09-15 18:58:05 · answer #9 · answered by Paladin 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, because Dems never get us into wars, right?
(Please don't count WW-I, or WW-II, or Korea, or Viet Nam, or. ...)
2006-09-15 19:04:26 · answer #10 · answered by jihad_against_muslims 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋