...Isn't that the same as saying we're sending troops to Iraq in order to keep extremists busy? In other words, we're sending our troops into combat to give angry people something to do over there, instead of coming over here?
It sounds insane when you put it in those words, doesn't it?
2006-12-10 17:46:51 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
And does it mean the lives of U.S. soldiers are more expendable than those of civilians?
2006-12-10 17:57:17 · update #1
U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan has been devastating. I have to agree with your statement. There are all sorts of car bombs and suicide bombings. There have been attacks on civilians and terrible assaults on women and such. Our newspapers have carried articles on American army deserters who came up North to escape from serving. They reported ugly scenes and terrible crimes against civilians.
2006-12-10 17:55:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
a million. the worldwide doesnt provide a sh*t approximately Africa 2. Zimbabwe doesnt have black gold (oil) 3. The west has spent such greater than a number of yrs flattening africa, y could u difficulty assisting it 4. Zimbabwe doesnt have diamonds 5. Zimbabwe isn't a muslim u . s . a . its harder to brainwash ppl and say "they r muslim!" we could desire to consistently kill them etc 6. Robert Mugabe is a extraordinarily intelligent yet yet evil guy and his govenrment is administered in the style of way that the worldwide cant coach his a dictator yet we in simple terms understand he's (he follows each potential of democracy yet does it for incorrect intentions) 7. The west is pissed of at Zimbabwe for gaining independence 8. Zimbabwe is in Africa 9. in simple terms about all "white zimbabweans" r in another u . s . a . who cares with regard to the blacks 10. the worldwide doesnt provide a sh*t approximately Africa
2016-12-18 11:14:54 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok, what everybody seems to fail to realize is that the actual terrorists don't wear a shirt with a big T and a stick of TNT printed on the front. On top of that, the children over there are being taught how to be terrorists. They have a "Holy war" where they're religion tells them to go blow s*it up for crap's sake! I think that if we don't just eliminate everything standing over there that's not us, then we won't be solving the problem- if the same is true, then that means killing innocent civillians due to the fact that these people will go on being angry at the US. Only way to truely stop them is...well... genocide. Sounds cold and extremely unjust, but their kids are learning to be good little terrorists in sunday school. I think we should just drop the friggin war as it now seems to be more about the oil over there. Everybody look up how Cheeney is linked to this war, just follow his oil trail.
2006-12-10 18:02:05 · answer #3 · answered by lonepackwolf 1 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Airborne is right. We didn't start this, and if we are going to fight, I'd rather it be there than here. Someone is shooting at us in Iraq....that is our enemy. Not the people, but the combatants on their soil. It takes two to battle and they have enough bad guys to keep us fighting. Where would all of them be if we were not engaging them in Iraq?
2006-12-10 17:55:52 · answer #4 · answered by frogspeaceflower 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well they've brought the war here once before; do you want them to do it again? I guess if you don't believe the terrorists were the ones that attacked us to begin with, we've got quite a delima, don't we?
To answer your last question... It only sounds insane if you are a conspiracy theorist, in which case, you're defined as quite insane. Of course, those definitions were created by governmental standards, sending one further into the oblivion of comparison between who's insane and who isn't. Kinda fun isn't it?
2006-12-10 17:51:07 · answer #5 · answered by Rockstar 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes it does, you child of world affairs. You sound insane with your circular lack of reasoning. Try reading a little instead of flopping your sitting duck wings.
2006-12-10 20:54:42 · answer #6 · answered by Lana Lang 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Bush! Defeat is not an option. If we quit, and bring our troops home, does that mean the insurgents are done fighting? Or will they come back? I say fight and kill as many as possible until they no longer have the means or the will to fight!
2006-12-10 18:02:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
NO. It means we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
2006-12-10 23:55:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
uhm... no not really.
if we are indeed keeping the extremists busy over there instead of having them attack innocent civillians over here that sounds like a pretty good plan to me.
2006-12-10 17:49:03 · answer #9 · answered by AirborneSaint 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Not really. It was a "finger" of speach. Ok?
2006-12-10 19:21:28 · answer #10 · answered by dorianalways 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋