2006-12-18 11:51:14 · 11 answers · asked by Me 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Hey adam W, why are you making assumptions? True republican! If your brother is a high ranking officer, you should be proud to state his name! Just because Regan helped free the P.O.W’s doesn’t justify all this corruption! I spoke to a troop today at Best Buy. He’s going back for another year- against his will mind you. He’s not happy. I asked “Why are we really there?” He replied, “The oil.” I’m not kidding. He said many troops are unhappy. Did your brother tell you that!
2006-12-18 18:42:28 · update #1
Yeah, If you are a firm believer in conspiracy theories. You really believe that the US planned or worked with the terrorist to attack our own nation, to kill our own people? That is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. My brother is a high ranking member in the Military (one of which i will not name) and works for the department of defense dealing with terrorism. The guy can't lie to save his life and there no way that he would not be able to know what is going on with terrorism. He would quit if that were the case. The dream world you live in is the worst ever, where everyone is the bad guy. What happened while Jimmy Carter was President? Iran had a hold of many P.O.W.'s. Once Reagan stepped in office, because of fear that the US would attack and get our guys back, the Iranians freely let our guys go. They were not on our side as a ploy to win votes. Tell your ignorance to a P.O.W. or any Veteran that fought for your rights, they would probably die knowing now what and who they fought for.
2006-12-18 12:11:56 · answer #1 · answered by adam W 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Democrats take over all 3 branches of the government, a major US city will be nuked. Here is how I know
1. The last 2 Democrat Presidents are Carter and Clinton
2. Carter backed down to terrorists with the Iran hostage situation. Reagan got them free by promising he would take them by force if they were not free within 15 minutes of him taking office.
3. Clinton ignored the pending Al Qaeda threat throughout the 1990's. Everytime they attacked us, it went unpunished. Each time the attack was bigger because they were not afraid of us.
4. Now, we have liberals wanting terrorists to get rights as if they were Americans. The activist courts decided, outside their authority, that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists.
2006-12-18 11:58:40 · answer #2 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you'll be suprised. Even tho eveyone assumes reps are harder on things when it comes to international and social issues. It's not totally true, it's easy to criticize when you are not in charge, the dems will stop now that they have the congress. Remember it was a democrat who dropped the bomb. It was a democrat who revampt the welfare system. it was a democrat who brought equal rights, workers rights, enviromentalism etc. to be know as pro this in the mainstream (even tho it was Teddy Roosevelt,a repubublican who really started it) it's amazing how dems get "conservative" when they are in power.
Now having said that, I doubt Nancy Pelosi will have a good plan (she has yet to offer it), I'm more apt to lean towards Hillary Clinton's idea.
It's going to be great to see what unfolds in the next year!
2006-12-18 12:29:19 · answer #3 · answered by hikin_mikew 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but it dosen't really matter what party has control it is only a matter of time before we are attacked again. No matter which side of the aisle you get the same results. Corruption and Greed. The will of the American people isnt carried out anyway or the illegals would be gone and the FMA would have passed.
2006-12-18 11:57:50 · answer #4 · answered by blood and ashes 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I presume you study ONE McCain marketing campaign staffer's remark to that result. ONE. basically because ONE staffer reported some thing like that, does not recommend that "RepublicanS" (plural) choose yet another terror attack. And, actual, the single staffer did not say he wanted yet another terrorist attack. extremely, the single staffer reported that IF it were to take position, it may help McCain. that's not the same element as declaring he wanted it to take position. Oh, with the help of ways, as we talk after the single staffer reported it, McCain as we talk denounced the remark. And so did the single staffer who reported it. He as we talk apologized. Sorry for having to capitalize the note ONE each and every time i discussed the single staffer who made the terrorist-attack remark. yet, given the actual incontrovertible truth that many liberals do not seem to carry close the version between "ONE staffer" and "the RepublicanS (plural)," I felt that it replaced into extremely necessary. Now, you've your self ONE heck of an stunning day. .
2016-11-30 22:42:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This looks like a non sequitor. There will probably be another terrorist attack no matter what party is in office. We have started something big this time.
2006-12-18 12:01:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I guess it does not depend on reps or dems. I think you are overestimating the influence of internal politics on the crazy extremists.
2006-12-18 11:57:50 · answer #7 · answered by mmsc 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes there will be attacks made on the usa
2006-12-18 11:52:49 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I honestly think so and am so frightened by that.
2006-12-18 11:55:07 · answer #9 · answered by Kallie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we are always open to attacks
2006-12-18 11:54:01 · answer #10 · answered by Christian F 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋