2006-12-11 16:21:06 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm officially declaring war on this evil question.
2006-12-11 16:25:54 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
this is unlikely . Hezbollah isn't a resistance military any more advantageous . they have lost the legitimacy they'd even as Israel replaced into occupying southern Lebanon . now they're an prolonged arm for Iran and Syria disrupting the steadiness of Lebanon and the area . that is actual although that the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon doesn't advise that Hezbollah must be dismantled , because what would make certain that the Israelis gained't bypass decrease back and re-occupy southern Lebanon back ?. that is in elementary words a loop . like who got here first ? the hen or the egg ? Hezbollah is a huge situation , yet no human being can do some thing about it now till a finished peace treaty is reached interior the area the position Hezbollah can replace right into a civilian employer . or be dealt with otherwise . yet i suggestion the Israelis of creating peace as quickly as they could this 365 days previously Mr Bush is going out of place of work . making peace now must be mandatory previously the nukes seep into the section and then it properly be very complicated to fix some thing . only make peace with each and anybody . and that i'm confident each and each and every of the hazards will be subtle . Israelis might want to do not forget that they ought to connect the section and by no skill a overseas body in it . each and everything may have a answer . perhaps the concessions are painful as Mr Olmert suggested , although the outcomes are large and courageous steps are mandatory .
2016-11-30 11:26:49 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Congress has not passed an official declaration of war since 1942. All "wars" since then (Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, the War on Poverty, the War on Christmas, etc.) have been authorized by Congress but have not had the legal definition of a war.
2006-12-11 16:39:44 · answer #3 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like the Truman Doctrine, Bush has come up with his own doctrine with the help of Wolfowitz and other republican war hawks...
The US has taken up a policy to stop terrorism, terrorists and
along with that any countries that harbour terrorists or associate with them.
that is what the war is about... in theory at least
in the document Bush claims that any country/person that opposes American interests are pretty much the enemy
2006-12-11 16:32:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and a war is probably won more easily when you don't declare something as broad as terror or drugs. The War on Terrorists in Afghanstan for example.
2006-12-11 16:26:03 · answer #5 · answered by txwebber 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US hasn't declared war on anybody since World War II.
2006-12-11 16:32:41 · answer #6 · answered by usarocketman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just a slogan. You see it all the time. War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc.....
2006-12-11 16:28:50 · answer #7 · answered by Schona 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't declare a war on terror. Terror is a feeling.
2006-12-11 16:24:23 · answer #8 · answered by bcrockrebel 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Its just a slogan. Myself, I prefered the "War On Drugs". Its the only way to fight a war :)
2006-12-11 16:25:37 · answer #9 · answered by Ferret 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
reagan declared a war on drugs
2006-12-11 16:42:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He haven't formally declared war since Dec. 1941.
2006-12-11 16:32:32 · answer #11 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋