2006-09-27 16:20:33 · 17 answers · asked by ? 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No, it should be called an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, which is against International Law!!
2006-09-27 16:24:10 · answer #1 · answered by cantcu 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
It's an invation, that what it should be called.
It can't be called peace "keepin" because it has increased the threat of terrorism according to several studies and commities
It can't be called renewal because thats what you do with libray books you jackasshole.
The war should be called, lets line the pockets of haliberten and the oil companies. it's also about this
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials.
think about it, sound like someone we know... (caugh) bush
2006-09-27 23:26:35 · answer #2 · answered by Eric B 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because its a war. Peacekeeping implies there was some peace to be kept, and that you want to try and retain whatever law and order prevailed before the peace keeping action.
This is why it fits into the category of war and not peace keeping.
As for Renewal, i have no idea what you are trying to say there. When you invade a country its a war, when you invade a country on the pretext of a larger "war on terror" its defiantly a war.
Plus peace keeping doesnt scare the public as much as a WAR!!!!!
2006-09-27 23:46:11 · answer #3 · answered by Game Theorist 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hmm, did Congress ever officially declare war, or did they just hand the keys to the tank to Junior after 9/11? More like an invasion and occupation of a sovereign country who was not an imminent threat to us and had nothing to 9/11, much less terrorism in general.
2006-09-27 23:32:34 · answer #4 · answered by Joe D 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well ... it started out as an pre emptive strike on a sovereign nation that had no WMDs and was not involved in 9/11. now it's an occupation of a ruined country that is now in the midst of a civil war with our troops stuck in the middle, a hatred invoking cause celeb for creating new terrorists. the only people happy about it are the Muslim zealots and America's criminal cabal of war profiteers.
2006-09-27 23:37:19 · answer #5 · answered by nebtet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yep and we're winnin the war on terror...the terroror's are on the run. The Irager's love us I can tell by all the presents they leave us on the roads. All of our friends around the wurld are behinds us..and they want us to stay the corse to make Amerca safer. I don't have to read the inteligence reports cause Dick told me everything is hunky dory. Condi says it's all Clinton's falt and I think she's right.
2006-09-27 23:31:09 · answer #6 · answered by Perry L 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe because "war" is much easier to spell than big words like "peace keeping" and "renewal".
2006-09-27 23:38:28 · answer #7 · answered by Isa 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because a country is being invaded by another, that's war, plus people are dying.
2006-09-27 23:42:32 · answer #8 · answered by c_mitu89 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's liberation!! They have no water, no electricity, no money, no food, but they have freedom!! They have daily bombing, but they also have democracy!! Hundreds are killed every week, but that was just detail... There is progress... Not sure about which direction, but it's progress...
2006-09-27 23:43:12 · answer #9 · answered by muon 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've yet to figure that one out. I thought the whole point to war was to win, not to be a humanitarian, and let's face it if US really wanted to, we could have already blown the whole middle east off of the map. Hell,. by now we could have been harvesting the oil.
2006-09-27 23:24:51 · answer #10 · answered by Tammy C 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋