terrorists wanted. Does that say that he should have stayed? Why should we be basing policy and cabinet positions on what makes life easier for terrorists? Come On!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_al_qaida
Oh yeah and I like the "blow up the White House" comment, so have fun Dem/Libs, now your in power in Congress, let's see your stones.
2006-11-10 03:52:31 · 13 answers · asked by jasonzbtzl 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
wineboy- Ok so the terrorist want us to leave because we are making their lives hard, so should we do that? The terrorists have said that the US elections "went in the right direction" so what does that tell you, we've elected terrorist approved candidates!! It just seems to me we would want to have people in office and posistions that are against what the terrorist want, seems like simple logic to me, but if you think the DEM/LIBs can go reason with these nutjobs so be it, in fact I hope they go over there and try to do it in person so they can see the real face of terrorism, they will most likely loose their heads to a terrorist sword or be blown up by an IED. Good Luck Dems.
2006-11-10 04:04:37 · update #1
map- That exactly what I F'ing saying. You think we should base our policy on what terrorist think or want, what the F is wrong with you! THEY WANT US TO DIE! They said they will not rest until they blow up the White House! So if you truely believe that, off yourself and your plan will be en-acted.
2006-11-10 04:08:19 · update #2
The terrorist dont understand American politics. They see Rummy stepping down as a good thing because he was associated with Bush and they hate Bush. Thats it.
"The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel," the terror leader said. "So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections."
Does this sound like they know what they are talking about? They think we are in this to support Israel.
"He urged Bush not to withdraw U.S. forces so al-Qaida could have more opportunities to fight U.S. soldiers."
They want us to stay in Iraq and since it is the conservatives that also want us to stay in Iraq does this mean that the cons. are the ones siding with the terrorists. It does by your logic.
2006-11-10 03:55:06 · answer #1 · answered by E 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh please, you come on.
Rumsfeld was more interested in testing out his pet theory about a lighter faster military without investing in the technology and arms that would have made it feasible. That's the difference between Rumsfeld the clown who never wore the uniform of his country and General Powell and the Powell Doctrine which required overwhelming force to defeat an enemy quickly and with a minimum loss of American life. The effectiveness of the Powell Doctrine was proven in the Gulf War, Rumsfeld proved himself to be a boneheaded bungler whose theory came up short and lost 3,000 American servicemen for no good reason.
Rumsfeld is gone because the American people wanted him gone, not because the terrorists did and I'm getting a little sick and tired of hearing that argument from weak, obedient people like you.
2006-11-10 03:58:51 · answer #2 · answered by wineboy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Reps on this board kept saying that people shouldn't vote for dems because it's what the terrorists wanted. You're saying that the opinions of terrorists shouldn't matter to how we run our government. I can't think of a better definition of hypocrisy.
2006-11-10 04:05:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rummy left because the President asked him to. He was just another scapegoat for Bush's incompetence. Rummy's leaving is a job half done. Who cares what terrorists say? They can ONLY win if you're afraid of them. Butch up and act like an American.
2006-11-10 04:00:31 · answer #4 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yea! Right.
They have the house and Congress so whatever happens they will have to account for it. I can't wait to see what their plan is. I do think they are making a BIG mistake by not confirming John Bolten, He is not an appeaser so I guess they'll put one of their own kind in there. We have alot of work to do the next 2 years!
Stones?? They left them up there on a mountain with the oysters!
2006-11-10 04:01:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is not always the one who wins the fight that is seen by others as a winner .
We need to examine and work to maintain peace in that region of the world .Iran And Korea are much more dangerous then Iraq Ever was .
2006-11-10 03:56:04 · answer #6 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it those numbers of 12000 fighters in Iraq are correct. That article is obviously directed at trying to get us to either pull out of Iraq or stay in Iraq. It's really hard to judge the motive.
Whatever, it's time to find another way to eliminate these nuts.
2006-11-10 04:06:25 · answer #7 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists love rummy. he liked to fight on a budget and use fewer troops. just enough to be targets with no armor. Now they tremble in fear as we may just get out and they will have only each other to kill. I say let them do it. they are already packing up to go home to caves and grumble. theyr eally do not care about Iraq. they are religious fanatics, not revolutionaries.
2006-11-10 03:56:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is my favorite part of the article;
Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also urged the U.S. to stay in Iraq so his group would have more opportunities to kill American troops.
Stay the Course!
2006-11-10 03:57:52 · answer #9 · answered by notme 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As Redrum spelled backwards said, "We go to war with the stupidity we have, not with the smarts we wish we had."
2006-11-10 04:04:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋