Iraq could be bombed back to the stone age but this is not what is wanted or desired. All out war to annilated every Iraqi citizen would be immoral though at this point probably desired by the Republicans to make the problem go away. Since the results with regard to the war on terror would be unknown the job will have to be finished.
2006-11-19 05:12:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Kenneth H 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Leaving the country alone was the best option and was advised by many who were ignored by the bush-league.
The so-called bad data that was used as an excuse came from the dude being pushed to replace rummy. Trained and appointed by the first bush.
Anyhow, just pulling out is not really an option since things have been so horribly botched up there. Hopefully the new leadership in congress will find a way out that does not involve full-scale war.
A big part of the problem is that the "insurgency" is not. It is the population, divided by religious issues that causes the civil war. The only solution that will last is genocide (pick one type of Muslim and kill them all off).
2006-11-19 13:16:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Gaspode 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
When was the last time we bombed anything in Iraq? It's the terrorists who are doing all of the bombing now. We're trying to protect people.
2006-11-19 13:13:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by Chris J 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.
And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.
But at least there will be a chance.
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.
To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.
Anymore Questions Ask ME
2006-11-19 13:10:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Because Civilization starts with stone age.
2006-11-19 13:28:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dr.O 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Because people become civilized after their rear ends have been scorched a few times.
2006-11-19 13:19:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by daydoom 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Odd that you should say that, considering that the data used for military action in Iraq was gathered on Bill Clinton's watch.
2006-11-19 13:10:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
We certainly can't babysit their civil war forever.
2006-11-19 13:09:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
bomb them BACK into civilization? no, ofcourse not, but we can bomb them FORWARD into civilization
2006-11-19 13:28:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by iberius 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
Because they're very cold, heartless, immoral, and unethical people.
2006-11-19 14:16:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by The Idealist 4
·
0⤊
1⤋