I keep seeing refrences to Bush's war, the Iraq war, Civil war, all made by liberals, are they not capable of understanding that the war on terror will encompass all nations and cultures.
2006-12-07 03:43:56 · 10 answers · asked by FEVER 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is an impossible task!!
2006-12-07 04:06:39 · answer #1 · answered by Smoky! 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the biggest confusion comes from the fact that the war on terror and the war in iraq are not the same thing. There was no connection between the Government of saddam Hussien and the taliban other than the fact that both hated Americans. Because a war on terror does not have to include every nation or the entire world. Or for that matter all cultures most terrorist come into being when their particular culture is attacked or repressed by another. Or they feel that the only way they can fight back is to target defensless targets.
2006-12-07 11:52:12 · answer #2 · answered by JimE 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure it will, want to pay for that too? When the leaders of each country realize the snakes in their bosom, they will each do what they can to keep their power. Bush destabilized the Middle East, by removing a dictator, who held on to power the way it was needed to be held onto in that country. Nasty though he may have been. Now surrounding countries see an opportunity to take Iraq over for their oil. Sunnis and Shiite are battling each other for control, while the Kurds can't stand either of them. The country of Iraq was created a bit more than a century ago at the convenience of the British when they ruled that area, so they have no national history or desire to stay together. I doubt that, at this point, only liberals think this was an ill-planned and poorly run war, and the justification for it has long since disappeared into the sunset. If we wanted to simply fight terrorism, we should have stayed after Osama, and cut him and his organization into useless pieces. That would have accomplished far more against terrorism that a misguided war that succeeded in united the Islamic terrorist groups into a more cohesive whole, and the Middle Eastern world into a tailspin.
Its called Bushs War because he went into Iraq. Whats your problem with that?
2006-12-07 11:58:52 · answer #3 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Will you explain to me how turning Iraq into a hotbed of terrorists is "fighting the war on terror"
I will believe this as soon as I hear a credible explanation of how invading Iraq, destroying the infrastructure of the country, dismantling their government and occupying the country for the last few years has done anything but create more terrorists.
I will believe you when someone can make a comprehensible argument for why Iraq had to be invaded.
2006-12-07 11:49:14 · answer #4 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
So, you give me one single f*cking quote from any terrorist organization that say`s they want to invade another country ie America. You can`t because it has never been said. How`s this for an idea. Pull all Western companies and military out of all middle east countries, leave the f*ckers to it. Then they would have f*ck all to ****** about therefore ending terrorism. America and the West will never do that so the fight go`s on and on and on and on. Middle East wealth is the pot of gold at the end rainbow. Peace or wealth ? America and the West always go where the $$$ are. Putting democracy in place in Iraq ? Don`t make me laugh, you don`t have democracy in America for f*cks sake. If some little bearded Beduin goat herder wants to bump off some other little bearded Beduin goat herder, let him carry on. F*ck em.
2006-12-07 11:57:57 · answer #5 · answered by dingdong 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know if this war had been done differently, I would agree.. I heard the President say he was raging a war on terror too, however for some odd reason I thought that meant finding Bin Laden and Al-Quieda first then going from there.. so far.. he has not done that.. he started one war, and then hopped to another country and started a war over there- we need to finish one course and then go to another... we have put the majority of our defenses in Iraq instead of looking for Bin Laden and Al-Quieda... we have changed the meaning of the war in Iraq 4 times... the tone of the reason in Iraq has changed many times... this war is nothing but a political war... we should be more worried about the threat to our country than politics...Bin Laden and Al-Quieda were and are a bigger threat to our country than Saddam was and ever would have been- he was a threat to his own country
2006-12-07 11:53:50 · answer #6 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oil, culture, and religion when these are wiped out in Iraq the war will be over and terrorism will be some new issue that must be fought.
2006-12-07 11:58:59 · answer #7 · answered by edubya 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
terrorism is an ideology.. the war on terror is also being fought here in the states.. but are we toppling our own government? Saddam was dictator, not a terrorist... and there are more terrorists in Pakistan than in Iraq.. why aren't we trying to topple that government? Palestine actually has terrorist as part of their government.. but we aren't there? hmm.. sounds more and more like you are blind to the truth.
2006-12-07 11:50:06 · answer #8 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
after you explain to them how guddling around in the midst of a civil war between 3 factions "fights terrorism."
2006-12-07 11:47:48 · answer #9 · answered by David B 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Stop watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and seek some REAL information.
2006-12-07 11:50:44 · answer #10 · answered by Jadis 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋