English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I believe the Demoquits would side with the enemy as usual since I've been listeneing to events over my adult life. Sometimes you wonder if a Democrat were in the line of fire - and an American soldier was on one side and the enemy on the other - to whom would he run for cover? Not considering the garbage they say about our military.

2006-12-18 16:38:26 · 12 answers · asked by Heyhey 1 in Politics & Government Military

12 answers

These days, Democrats tend to be talk first, talk second, and die third.

Republicans tend to support *** kicking.

2006-12-18 16:40:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

the problem isnt what party is in control. Its the decisions those who are in control make.
Rather or not Gal or Bush was president makes little difference on 9/11.
I do have questions about events in and around 9/11 and Bush's actions, but that is just one man. If the government didnt want Bush there they could have removed him all ready.

The problem is that it takes more then 1 man to make every military decision. All though the president can send troops into a region for 90 days (i think is the length) He can not keep them there.

Someone other then Bush had to sign off on all actions.

I dont knwo what the democrats would have done, but i'm sure no matter who was in charge something would have happened.

As for another attack.... thats hard to say.

2006-12-18 16:49:39 · answer #2 · answered by clomtancy 5 · 0 0

Actually I hope the Libertarians are in control. You attack a Libertarian and you just opened yourself to a big world of hurt.

The Romans had a saying that a citizen of Rome (the city), could walk from one end of the empire to another unharmed. That is because when any Roman was ever harmed by a non-Roman, the non-Roman's entire town was laid to waste.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have the stomach for such a policy. But a Libertarian could get it done.

2006-12-18 18:23:48 · answer #3 · answered by aragon_the_younger 2 · 0 0

The Boy Scouts of America would do a better job than Bush and his supports. The guy next door who sells plumbing supplies knows more useful information than Bush knows at this late point of his unleadership. It reminds of the Great German Sixth Army that died at Stalingrad for the singular reason that Hitler would not allow his commanders to do their job of leading.
Bush is a similar leader because he is also micro-managing our armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What nerve Bush has to ignore the people of our Country and continue with this ill conceived and horribly lead operation in the Middle East. Where does he get off?
Has he never read one book on or about the Silk Road in the Middle East? Has he ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Does he realize that the people of the Middle East hate us more than they hate each other?
Has he heard the young Islamics screaming "Kill me first?"
What and why do we do this thing again?

2006-12-18 17:00:55 · answer #4 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0 1

I actually hope that the Democraps are in power. This way, when it fails miserably for them, we can point the finger at them. Remember politics after 9/11? Everyone agreed with Bush when he said we'd hunt them down no matter where they were. Then, once he started doing it, people started going, "Uh...no, wait. I didn't really mean it. I mean, it's O.K. if they attack us first again. It looks better that way, and we only loose 3 or 4 thousand unarmed civilians, then instead of 3 or 4 thousand troops with the ability to fight back."

2006-12-18 16:59:57 · answer #5 · answered by narrfool 3 · 1 1

All your life? All 18 years of your life? Americans stand together - it's trolls like you who sow the seeds of dissension and act the role the enemy wants. America after 9/11 was united. Now, as shown by your question, you are supplying the enemies of democracy the weapons they need.

2006-12-18 17:11:29 · answer #6 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0 1

we would have about the same results with either party our govt. has become impotent dealing w/ problems look at katrina,
our politicians care more about making their opponent looking bad than making themselves looking good, its all an elite aristocracy, where the main agenda is control and getting reelected, i Hate bipartisan politics, they will say anything to get elected and will do whatever they want when they get into office
all the BS on gay marrige abortion flag burning is a big distraction from the real problems our world faces look deeper & u will see

2006-12-18 16:52:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

We'd close ranks, no matter who's in charge. Let's hope the individual has the guts and charisma to bring us together, no matter what party he's from.

2006-12-19 16:22:01 · answer #8 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1 0

I hope the side that doesn't put contracts with Halliburton, kiss up to oil rich countries, and cater to a religious fanatic agenda is not in control.

2006-12-18 16:42:12 · answer #9 · answered by txwebber 3 · 2 2

Well the republicans failed last time perhaps somebody else should be given a chance

2006-12-18 17:50:34 · answer #10 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers