Forget the politics of hate for a moment but I am absolutely sure that our Military would not be so traumatized on a futile war fought for OIl and Cash.
2006-10-22 06:44:51 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
As a matter of fact, they wouldn't even be in Iraq. Kerry - like almost everyone else except for Bush and his ****** cronies - knows that the real "war on terror" and Osama are in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. There was never any terrorist problem in Iraq until we went in and destabilized the government, forced our form of democracy on the people (they didn't want it and don't know what its all about) and then the terrorists moved in from neighboring countries. All Bush has done is escalate the war against terrorists - not end it.
2006-10-22 07:28:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No politics of hate but the war is for oil & cash? What a hypocrite!
The military is not traumatized. Talk to those who have been there.
With Kerry or Gore in the WH, I think thousands of US civillians whould be dead from terror attacks since the blast Bush for every step he has taken to protect us.
2006-10-22 13:58:05 · answer #2 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The facts are that Bin Laden started terrorism as soon as 1993/1994, that is BEFORE Bush election and at the time Oslo agreements were signed.
Fact is US embassies have been exploded in Kenya & Tanzania in 1998, when Clinton was in office, BEFORE Bush election.
Fact is that 2nd Iraqi War and Afghanistan occured AFTER 9/11.
Fact is US waged the 1st Iraqi war AFTER Iraqi's invasion of Koweit. And fact is Bin Laden went on terrorism because US soldiers were on the "holy" land of Saudi Arabia.
This is the usual terrorist speech when Israeli or US defend themselves: "oh, we commit murders and terrorism in retaliation". Lies. THEY decided to go on war. Not us, nor the US.
2006-10-23 04:05:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
with kerry in the white house, 9-11 would have happened on both coasts, Bush saved lives by shutting down the airways and going on the offensive. Both an East and West Coast 9-11 were planned.
Get Micheal Moores pole out of your mouth, Al qaeda was planning, training, and financing these attacks well into the Clinton presidency, did Bush plan all this when he was governor?
The military is proud to serve and proud to kill hajji SOBs that want to kill americans on our soil. Dems will always be happy to pander to the terrorists and call our troops nazis, while calling the throatcutters terrorists, there used to be a penalty for treason in a time of war.
2006-10-22 13:53:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Kerry was a shill candidate put up by the people who control our country to lose. 9-11 needed to happen. There was never a chance in hell of Kerry winning that election and not because people liked Bush ok?
Without 9-11 there would have been no iraq war and they needed that war by god.
2006-10-22 14:10:57 · answer #5 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
More than 3000 because we wouldn't be in Afghanistan either because Kerry wouldn't have the balls to go fight for our right to exist and defend ourselves. He would have gone right to the un and asked permission to defend ourselves. When they said no he would have curtsied and left. Kerry is too big of a pussy to fight for what he believes in. He would have apologized to Al Queda for our buildings getting in the way of those planes and would have paid reparations to the families of the terrorists who hijacked the aircraft and would have said to hell with the families of those who were killed in the Trade Towers. He would have made Carter look like the best president ever. Taxes would be sky high, poverty at an all time high, unemployment and interest rates both at 30+%, we'd be so far into a recession it would be close to being called a depression. Kerry was and always will be a joke. His picture is in some hall of heros in Vietnam. THAT MAN IS A HERO TO THE VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS AFTER HE WAS DISCHARGED!! HE IS A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-22 13:56:09 · answer #6 · answered by Jeff F 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
NO John Kerry said on a few occasions that he would continue to fight in Iraq. That guy Mr. John Kerry turned his back on his war buddys for political gain. I would vote for Bubbles the monkey before i voted for john kerry. I believe there would be no difference in the number of deaths in Iraq. and before you say "Well what do you know?" I have been in Iraq, I have seen the blood, it sucks but were stoping a lot more than you know. keep on paying attention to the Lib media. all they report is scandal and tragic news because that means ratings for them.
2006-10-22 13:56:58 · answer #7 · answered by rjl2382 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Are we still beating this dead horse too??? Give me a break!!! Sure those 3000 Americans might be alive, but to what end? Thousands of innocent people still living under a tyrant? And that tyrant still threatening our great land? Grow up! If you don't like our government, quit crying about it and vote.
2006-10-22 13:52:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
I don't know why. The WTC attack was planned on Clinton's watch. I don't think Osama would have called it off just because there was another Democrap in the White House.
2006-10-22 14:11:48 · answer #9 · answered by Pete 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush needs to step up and show the muslims he's not playing around anymore, and if Kerry was in office, I'd say the same thing.
2006-10-22 13:49:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋