English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

29 answers

Absolutely. The libs have given power to the enemy. They realize that America is split and that in and of itself gives them power. Same thing happened Nam. What bothers me is the lack of support our troops will get when they come home.

2006-10-16 06:41:45 · answer #1 · answered by only p 6 · 0 6

No, the democrats have never turned down a single spending request and have never stood in the way of this corrupt and disastrous, unwinnable godless war. Even when it was obvious to many blogs that the WMD excuse was a blatant lie, (before the invasion) the gutless supine and craven democrats rolled over and gave in to warmongering evil corrupt godless republicans.

If only the Democrats HAD stood up to Bush. I cannot stand democrats, but someone HAS to stand up to Bush and end this war. It is serving no good purpose, helping nobody but an insignificant handful of corporate lucifarians and paedophiles and doing a great deal of Harm to the USA, the West and the Planet.

The Bush/Blair cabal is now responsible for a worse evil in Iraq than Saddam Hussien.

2006-10-16 06:51:08 · answer #2 · answered by kenhallonthenet 5 · 2 0

Nope, Bush had all the support he needed. He had both houses of Congress voting for any bill he wanted.

The problem with Iraq has been his and Rumsfeld's inability to listen to reason. The military command both on the field and at the pentagon have been calling for more troops from the beginning. They actually thought we would be seen as liberators, not as invaders. They wouldn't even consider any other perspective, that is why they had no "Plan B". Rumsfeld and Bush's short-sighted approach, lack of a strategy for actually winning Iraq, and lack of a clear cut exit strategy have doomed this war from the start.

2006-10-16 06:41:52 · answer #3 · answered by jimvalentinojr 6 · 4 0

Do I think that a bad idea would have become a good idea if everybody fell for it? No, no I do not.

This idea that public opinion affects the outcome of warfare is blatant nonsense. We as Americans believe far too much in the power of self-esteem and positive feelings over the outcome of events. We are simply not important enough as individuals to affect the results of such actions with our emotions. The battles we've won, we won because our troops are better trained and better armed than their adversaries. If you personally have warm feelings about the fighting, it doesn't affect anybody but yourself.

Public opinion wins politics. Bullets, tactics, armor, training, and superior numbers win actual wars.

2006-10-16 07:03:01 · answer #4 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0 0

Believe it or not, the problem in Iraq isn't due to "libs."

The "Iraq situation" would be different today if BushCo knew how to successfully prosecute a war. But they sent in too few troops to begin with, believed we'd be greeted with flowers as "liberators" in one of the more stunning cases of high-level naivete on record, then refused to admit the unfriendly fact of the mounting insurgency until it was too late to deal effectively with it. These are people who systematically refused to look at "facts on the ground" which seemed at odds with their conception of things. And I'm not even getting into the question of whether the war was "justified," because everybody knows now that it was NOT.

2006-10-16 06:42:52 · answer #5 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 4 0

NO NO NO! When this country was attacked we were all united and ready to back Bush regardless of our political affiliations. It wasn't until Bush and his buddies took a united front AGAINST Democrats, working-class Americans, and used our unequivocal patriotism to pass laws and contrive policies that benefit the top 10% of American Capitolists--and no one else!!!

Look at the polls now--realize the monstrous malfeasance of the Bush Crime Family--become someone with a realistic, mainstream mentality and quit wasting your time trying to justify criminal activity based on a lie!!

2006-10-16 07:08:35 · answer #6 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 1 0

you recognize propagandists write something they opt for in Wikipedia do not you. human beings may even bypass in and alter it and a exceptional form of extremists do in simple terms that. Now, how do you artwork that Clinton become doing something in Iraq? We weren't allowed in there. They even refused to enable the UN inspectors in. the only ingredient he did become order 4 hundred bombing missions to substantiate the no fly zone. Saddam had finished administration over that united states, there become no opposition social gathering or resistance group and he had between the biggest status armies interior the international. you're able to desire to be smoking something. As for positioned up invasion, Bush and the Generals meant to bypass away six months after the conflict however the UN declined to deliver peacekeepers and the Dem congress complained that we gained't bypass away the detrimental darlings to curve interior the wind. that's the goofiest ingredient i think of I even have ever heard. heavily, do you not know that Wikipedia isn't a real source of concepts? Its not proper in colleges as a source, its in simple terms lot of press releases and political propaganda. Dude, awaken.

2016-11-23 14:47:56 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Remember, Bush had 100% support when he invaded Afghanistan, and his approival raiting sky rocketed. But then he let Osama get away at Tora Bora, and decided to mistakenly set his sights on Iraq. Despite what the neo cons on here will tell you, that is when support for Bush and his nonsense starting slipping.

2006-10-16 06:42:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Yes.

It has been said that wars are won on the battlefield of public opinion. This is more true than ever in our age of modern communication. Keep in mind that the "war on terror" is, by its nature, a war of ideologies rather than a war for territory.

Frankly, I think that the constant bashing by the liberals and the press have extended the conflict and cost American lives. The US easily won the initial ground war. The subsequent middle and end games, however, are largely dependent on winning the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqis who were liberated, but those of the rest of the world. These efforts have been largely undermined by the under reporting of positive accomplishments, focus on negative occurrences, and a generally negative spin placed on any actions that fall into the center gray area.

2006-10-16 06:51:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

What? A united front of idiots? If that had happened, the US would have even less credibilty in the rest of the world, if that is possible.

2006-10-16 06:46:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Absolutely not. What difference would that make in Iraq?

2006-10-16 06:37:45 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

fedest.com, questions and answers