I think it would unify America like WWII did. Plus it would put the complex logistice of Global war in the enemy's camp instead of ours.
It's hard to play Red Blue when the enemy is shelling your house.
2006-11-22 15:09:39 · 18 answers · asked by 43 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's sad to think that it would take that to unify America. Remember that feeling everyone had right after 9/11?
2006-11-22 15:12:43 · answer #1 · answered by c8lin 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
According to History we didn't fight WWII on our own soil Skippy. Yes Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but that is as far as that went. You may have confused WWII with the movie Red Dawn. The difference between then and now, is that we cared about our own country. We weren't sissified. Come on there isn't anything that can bring us together for more than a few days. We were hit only a few years back and nobody cares anymore, if they did they'd remember we still have troops fighting in Afghanistan.
2006-11-22 23:37:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The public has always been fickle during wars. Obviously, no one supports the death of any of our soldiers, so it is a very difficult topic. If George Washington had to deal with the public lack of support during the War for Independence, how could George Bush escape it??
2006-11-22 23:15:12 · answer #3 · answered by Hammy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you insane? How would the war in iraq be fought in america? Do you want your house shelled? Do you like the smell of war? Of blood and gunpowder and death? Do you like getting shot at?
2006-11-23 00:17:21 · answer #4 · answered by Greg 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This "fight the war there, so we don't fight it here" crap is just empty rhetoric.
This idea that by being in Iraq, we somehow have the terrorists pinned down is just unfounded and dangerous. It is really, really hard to kill real terrorists using conventional soldiers and equipment ... all you do is kill a *lot* of civilians in the process, which leads to five new terrorists for every one you are lucky enough to kill.
If anything, Iraq is a fantastic recruiting bonanza, and a training ground, for *new* terrorists. Our domestic efforts are completely independent of anything we are doing there. If we tripled our forces and kill ratio, or if we brought our troops all home today (which I'm not advocating we do), it wouldn't make one IOTA of difference to the domestic risk of terrorism.
HOWEVER, one good point you have is that the everyday American has no personal contact with this war in Iraq at all. Heck, we don't even have a financial burden ... Bush has made the argument that this war is so minor, that we can "cut" taxes at the same time that we fight it. (Can you imagine the President during WWII saying it was a good time to cut taxes?)
2006-11-22 23:15:57 · answer #5 · answered by c_sense_101 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
We fought WWII "over there" nobody's house was shelled in the US in WWII. Besides that "the enemy" has no capabilty to invade the US. You are talking nonsense.
2006-11-22 23:14:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
hehe enemies don't shell America. America shells enemies.
2006-11-22 23:19:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It might make it easier to fight, but it is hard to imagine how it might be done. Of course, if we leave Iraq to al Qaeda and the Taliban, it WILL be fought here. And I doubt that we shall like it.
2006-11-22 23:13:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
LOL......I'm having difficulty as to how to answer this umm.....totally off the wall question. I'm going to have to go with ....keep the war over there. I'm not that interested in proving a point.
2006-11-22 23:13:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If two dumb A$$ hill billies can blow up an entire building in Oklahoma City with Cow Manure and Diesel fuel. Imagine what they could do if we turn them loose on the Muslim extremists.
2006-11-22 23:17:08 · answer #10 · answered by Cooljerk 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋