have to fiil in the blank, but as a member of the Bush administration i'm not sure of the answer, so i need help. The question is :
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour so the Americans attacked the Japanese. Osama Bin Laden attacked New york so the Americans should attack.......................?
A. North Korea
B. Iran
C. Iraq
D: Osama Bin Laden
2006-12-30 08:53:43 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
D. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 so I think we need to find the bastards that did.
2006-12-30 15:47:17 · answer #1 · answered by boredom_takes_the_wheel 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They should attack Osama Bin Laden.
So far they've attacked 2 countries and still no Osama Bin Laden.
I think they're gonna keep Osama Bin Laden around as a symbol and reason to keep invading nations.
Bush says: "Afghanistan has OBL"
*US INVADES AFGHANISTAN AND NO OSAMA*
Bush says: "Iraq has OBL"
*US INVADES IRAQ AND NO OSAMA*
Bush says "_____ has OBL" (fill in blank with the name of the nation that you have a grudge against, or a nation that holds the most economic or natural resource)
*US INVADES THAT NATION AND STILL NO OSAMA*
Just keep up with the routine Bush. There are still people out there who are stupid enough to believe you and die for you, so use them while they're still fresh.
EDIT: Before some smarta$$ says "It's the idealogy we're after", think again. Iraq wasn't harbouring Al-Qaeda prior to the invasion (Al-Qaeda came in only AFTER the invasion) SOOO, based on pure logic, it's not the idealogy the US was after either because it wasn't based in Iraq. So I'll put it in plain English for you nut jobs:
-Iraq had link to 9/11
-US still went on and invaded Iraq
-Oh, yeah, and Iraq didn't have nukes either so don't try to go there
There were no links between 9-11 and Iraq (source: 9-11 Commission) therefore it doesn't take much effort to do the math either:
US INVADES IRAQ+IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OSAMA=IRAQ WAR BEING CORRUPT AND ECONOMICALLY MOTIVATED
2006-12-30 08:59:46 · answer #2 · answered by LaissezFaire 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cute. Now if you can only figure out the difference between a second-generation war and a fourth-generation war you may graduate from being an uneducated onager to a half-witted one.
2006-12-30 09:50:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The last three because it has been shown that Osama has had links to both Iran and Iraq receiving money and weapons from them as well as people for his terrorist and trainang for his terrorists
2006-12-30 09:23:43 · answer #4 · answered by blueflash 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The answer is "D" since Bin Laden rules over a worldwide "web" of terrorists. He doesn't laim allegence to any one country but rather to his cause.
2006-12-30 08:57:46 · answer #5 · answered by warmdaddy 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The schools should teach historical facts.
Not innacurate comparisons..
Teachers espousing their own political views,
Even far out radical ones,
Belong at the higher grade levels ...
opinionated starting in high school.
The nuts in college.
2006-12-30 09:06:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you don't know, how should we? If the truth is told then we would not be at war and Osama would have been hanged by now.
2006-12-30 09:17:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm... as I recall we attacked Germany also, and France,and Italy and North Africa... What kind of History do they teach there anyway?
2006-12-30 11:18:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I would attack in four different directions.
2006-12-30 09:03:41 · answer #9 · answered by camrynsdad2001 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suspect that like most people, you are FOS. The "facts" are not correct and most won't even listen to the facts. So, why bother?
2006-12-30 09:41:01 · answer #10 · answered by Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋