more troops =more targets,attack al sadr =shiite uprising in all of middle east ,and bomb iran=nuclear exchange in middle east
2006-12-28 02:40:00 · 12 answers · asked by sasuke 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
cynthia you are correct but anyone who is paying attention can see where bush is headed.
2006-12-28 03:18:22 · update #1
Good God I hope not..The fact is you are talking an in crease of a
100,000 plus additional troops..I think the war weary American public would never buy it..remember Americas nuclear policy is for defense not offense !!
2006-12-28 02:50:03 · answer #1 · answered by dadacoolone 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
More troops does not mean more targets. It is not as if our troops are sitting ducks. You might as easily say more troops the more terrorists will get killed.
Sadr should have been swinging from a lamp post two minutes after the Iraqi people liberated themselves from the tyrant that enslaved them.
US won't bomb Iran. And if they do, it will be LONG after Bush has left office. We'll let Clinton or Obama live with that.
2006-12-28 02:43:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Bush replaced into no longer in fee of the Iraqi government, the trial, or the execution. the U. S. protection rigidity have been asked to hold Saddam prisoner in basic terms with the aid of fact it replaced into the main suitable way for the Iraqi government to be certain he does no longer be busted out of reformatory by employing his gang. This replaced into for sure a real threat. however the U. S. protection rigidity became Saddam over to Iraqi government officers for the execution. i think Bush expressed some sadness on the taunting in simple terms before the execution. i spotted that when the witnesses began chanting "Moqtada," Saddam laughed. He ought to are looking forward to the way forward for our courting with the Mahdi military! Evil he could have been, yet no longer stupid. even nonetheless i think of it ought to have been good that a minimum of countless the witnesses have been Sadr supporters; they could be distinctly credible witnesses to the actual shown fact that Saddam Hussein replaced into extremely lifeless.
2016-10-06 03:00:04 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They declared war on us a long time ago, but we are still playing the Chamberlain game. Seems history repeats itself when people don't learn.
2006-12-28 02:44:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
and allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons is good for who?? The liberal appeasement will cause nuclear war.
2006-12-28 02:44:26 · answer #5 · answered by 007 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
As of now Bush has not come out with his new plan.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_14
How did you come up with all this?
2006-12-28 03:10:34 · answer #6 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-12-28 02:41:46 · answer #7 · answered by kellbelle21 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
end of the world
2006-12-28 02:42:52 · answer #8 · answered by Abu 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
more troops= yes
2006-12-28 02:52:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What about North Korea? They tested missiles, shouldn't they have to pay too? Why are we not focusing on actual threats?
2006-12-28 02:45:14 · answer #10 · answered by Jacy 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋